ECONOMICS 5080 QUESTIONS AND ... - University of Utah

ECONOMICS 5080 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
ALL STUDY QUESTIONS
ECONOMICS DEPARTMENT, UNIVERSITY OF UTAH WINTER QUARTER 1995
Question 1 Take something which you are more familiar with than value—be it electricity,
wealth, love, information, power, noise, or whatever, and discuss it under the aspects of
substance, magnitude, and form.
[63] Zaskar: Outdoor Recreation Substance: Outdoor recreation in whatever form
offers me a feeling of freedom and of well being. I receive and perceive value in engaging
in activities outside. Location is not a condition of receiving value from these endeavors. It
is simply a rejuvenation of spirit that comes to me as I enjoy my surroundings. I suppose it
is the feelings of freedom and of rejuvenation that are the substance of these experiences. I
interpret substance as the “use value” of the experience. Magnitude: The magnitude of my
outdoor experience depends mainly of my frame of mind and the level of my aroused senses.
I always enjoy my time in the out of doors but sometimes the intensity of my experience
differs depending on many factors of my experience. This is what I consider the magnitude
or level of the experience.
Form: The form of my outdoor recreation is a function of the type of recreation I choose. I
may choose to use my mountain bike as a means of receiving value from my outdoor experience.
The value of outdoor recreation can come in many forms and is generally independent
from the magnitude or the substance of the experience.
Hans: You shouldn’t think of form of value or value form of the product here. The form of outdoor recreation is
the specific activity which you choose. Whether mointain biking, fishing, or skiing, these activities are just different
ways to enjoy the outdoors.
Message [63] referenced by [185] and [1996sp:105]. Next Message by Zaskar is [64].
[185] Renegade: These qualities of value in Marx’s terms are “purely accidental and
purely relative.”
Hans: First of all, Marx does not say that. I thought I had explained that sentence in my notes. Secondly, I did
not want you to discuss substance, magnitude, and form of the value of artwork, but of artwork itself. Forget about
value, simply talk about artwork,
Artwork is the item I am more familiar with than the the term “value”. Substance of
artwork: This means that a particular kind of matter is used. For instance, artwork may
be used with oil-based pigments, linen canvas, and put together in such a manner as to be
labeled “artwork”.
Hans: According to this, the substance of value would have to be use value.
Magnitude of artwork: This means the degree of importance of artwork. Each item of art
has its own unique degree of importance. For example, a piece of artwork by a child may be
important only to a mother. whereas, if the child grows up and becomes Pablo Picasso, the
1
2 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
degree of importance of that artwork may become grander. It changes in time. It has a wider
audience of appreciation and therefore it increases in value.
Hans: Importance is something relative. The magnitude of something should not be.
Form of artwork: Art is a creation or expression that takes an outward appearance or
shape or that is perceived by the senses somehow. The value is found in the sensual perception.
For example, music is heard and its form may be subcategorized into different
forms–for example folk, pop, etc. Additionally, the form is where the value is formed. Its
value resides in its sensual appeal. Sensual appeal is formed a great deal by culturation.
Even what may be inherently repulsive may become an item of appeal.
Hans: I don’t think you got it. I would like to know what our philosopher friends say about this. I am more
convinced by [63].
All three of these qualities of value–form, magnitude, and substance are as Marx pointed
out, matters of relativity from one social group to the next.
Hans: Well, now I see why you called it relative. But this is certainly not accidental. Your quote at the beginning
was a blatant misquote.
Next Message by Renegade is [186].
[517] Tuan: I think real love and knowledge is something you can’t buy.
Hans: Just to prevent any misunderstandings: this question does not have anything to do with commodity production
or value.
In term of substance, Love is natural. It comes to you without expectation but it would
never come when you chase it. In addition, Knowledge can learn and given. It can hold your
utility or it can be completely useless. Love and knowledge is something you can learn and
also teach other.
Hans: Your emphasis on how it can be given and received comes apparently from your desire to connect your
discussion with commodity production. As the question was intended, such a connection was not required. I do not
see what this connection has to do with the substance of love or knowledge.
In term of magnitude, knowledge and love is seemed hard to learn and acknowledge.
There are many ways and test that we could use to find out of magnitude of knowledge and
love someone have. However, we will not tell whether test or ways is accurate completely
based on our measure of experience of life in love or intellect of study in school.
Hans: There are two different questions. One is: can one attribute a magnitude to knowledge or love, and the other
is: how easy it is to measure the magnitude of a given knowledge or love. You are answering the second question,
but the first question was asked. This is a widespread mistake, see also [20] and [67], which Bhaskar calls the
“epistemic fallacy.”
What about form?
Next Message by Tuan is [518].
[635] Leo: Substance of love is each aspect that makes it complete. You love someone
because of a number of reasons. Magnitude equals the amount felt in each area. You admire
their intelligence, enjoy their humor and see their beauty. The form of love may be
friendship, family or romance.
Hans: I don’t quite see how to come to say that the substance of love is each aspect that makes it complete. I would
say the substance of love is what your feel for the loved one (admiration or empathy etc.) while the amount is “how
strongly.” And the form is, I agree, the social setting in which this love is acted out.
Next Message by Leo is [637].
[721] Rangers: Knowledge is something tangible that I will use to discuss value. In terms
of substance, knowledge can be given and made. I can teach you something and you in turn

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 3
can teach someone else. It can either hold utility for yourself or it can be completely useless.
The form in which knowledge comes from can be many, many things. A book, a newspaper,
TV, a lecture, an experience, a thought or virtually anything. Knowledge is very difficult to
pidgeon hole by way of form. In terms of magnitude, knowledge is something that seems
rather easy to acknowledge. There are many ways to find out how knowledgeble someone is.
There are a variety of tests one could test is find out the magnitude of knowledge someone
may have. Although some can argue that some tests do not accurately measure intelligence,
tests can be reconstructed to measure knowledge. Whether it be knowledge on how to use
derivatives for phyics or how to survive in the inner-city.
Hans: Excellent example!
First Message by Rangers is [107].
[722] Slrrjk: Suffering is what I’d like to discuss in terms of substance, maginitude, and
form. Substance - The substance of suffering would be the painful feeling that one undergoes
when suffering. Form - The form of suffering would be the type of suffering that a person
is experiencing. An example would be a person suffering from depression, hunger, poverty,
cancer, etc. Magnitude - The magnitude of suffering could be thought of as the amount of
suffering that a person is experiencing. A person suffering from two days without food vs.
a person suffering from two months without food are examples of different magnitudes of
that particular type of suffering.
Hans: This is a value free empiricist approach. The painful feelings (and presumable other bodily reactions) of
suffering are the substance, that is what is measurable and real. The form is the kinds of thoughts the person has
when suffering, depression, hunger, poverty. But since you think the world is value neutral, these are not real ills,
but these are circumstances which the person happens not to like.
In the depth realist (rather than empiricist) approach, which allows reality to go beyond that what can empirically
be experienced, and which also allows reality to have attributes which usually are considered value judgments
(i.e., certain realities are really ills, it is not merely a matter of subjective valuaton whether they should be considered
ills), one would probably turn it around and say: human suffering is the human reaction to certain ills out
there: deprivation, injustice, death, etc. Then these ills would be the substance, and the feelings in which these ills
are reflected in human consciousness the form. This is probably very new to you but I recommend considering it.
Next Message by Slrrjk is [723].
Question 2 is 3 in 1997sp:
Question 2 Give examples which show that the wealth of a nation can be unrelated or
perhaps even opposite to the wealth of the individuals living in that nation.
[12] Scarlett: I suppose that the most obvious examples we can find would be in the
gap between the rich people of a nation and the poor. In our own country, there is a huge
difference between those on welfare and those who are considered rich. It is because of this
that measurements such as the GDP or even the per capita GDP do not necessarily reflect
the living conditions of the people of that country. Another example would be in South
American countries where there are a few extremely wealthy individuals who make their
money in drug trafficking, while most of the population live in poverty.
Hans: The reference to the GDP-measurements is good. Many components of wealth cannot be expressed in
dollars and cents, and GDP may be increased at the expense of real wealth.
Next Message by Scarlett is [13].
[15] Dubbel: An example in which might show this seperation is a nation defense system,
i.e. nuclear weapons. Many nations focus their wealth on creating a greater defense system.
4 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
This might also be seen as a comodity of power. From a nation’s view this is probably a
sign of wealth. In relation to the individual, I don’t think this is a direct wealth in relation
to the individual. Also this might not be a value-use to the individual. A nation’s influence
and power are all signs of a nation’s wealth among other nations. An nation’s wealth is
not directly related to an individual’s wealth. A nation’s wealth is perhaps a cost to the
individuals.
Hans: Yes, this is apparent in your example: the individual has to go to war for the greatness of the nation which
does not benefit him. But don’t call the national defense system a commodity. Not everything can be subsumed
under the category of a “commodity”. (I tacitly corrected various small spelling errors, and an omitted word, in the
above. Please read and edit your answers carefully before submitting them).
Next Message by Dubbel is [16].
[20] Ann: Our country continually gets too engaged in the number of exports, imports,
military power, defense weapons and so on that we have, in order to categorize the wealth of
our nation. Though these are important to the lives of many Americans, most Americans are
not categorizing their own wealth by their country’s military power. The average person’s
wealth is assessed pay check to pay check. Our country needs to focus more on the needs of
the individual worker.
Hans: I made some small editorial changes. Why not use “measure” instead of “categorize”?
Is it a mistake that wealth is categorized by these measures unrelated to individual wealth, or might an increase
in individual wealth perhaps result in a decline of national wealth?
Message [20] referenced by [517]. Next Message by Ann is [21].
[24] Tsunami: “Wealth of Nations” terminology is often used to mask the social ills
befalling the citizens of particular nations. Even when considering countries that are wealthy
in terms of natural resources, etc., like the United States, it is important to “take a closer
look” in order to witness the increasing feminization of poverty, increasing homelessness,
etc. OPEC countries such as Kuwait and Saudia Arabia are wealthy by IMF and World Bank
figues but given that petrol-rich land is in the hands of a select few, the nation’s wealth is
unequally distributed among inhabitants. Furthermore, where a nation’s wealth comes from
also plays a role on the well-being of it citizenry; if its source of wealth has adverse effects
on the environment, say the use of mercury to extract gold or slash-and-burn land clearing
tactics then the nation’s wealth will be in an antagonistic position in relation to the good of
the populous. Terms such as “wealth of nations,” I think, tend to mask systems of power
and oppression by presenting wealth as belonging to the nation when in fact it belongs to a
select few.
Hans: Excellent examples!
Next Message by Tsunami is [25].
[39] Oj: The United States of America is one of the richest and most powerful nations in
the world. America has the most powerful militaries the world has ever seen. The government
spends millions on fighter planes, tanks, bombs, and other military needs. However,
if you look deeper into America you will find that there are people who are homeless, who
are working for minimum wage twelve hours a day just to keep their families from starving.
Not enough money is put into homeless and food shelters. It is being put into vacations for
political officials, or spent on needs not providing for the people of the country. Not enough
money is being put into education, because if it was beggars out on the streets would be
educated enough to go out and apply for jobs. Thus proving that the wealth of a nation does
not exactly apply to the wealth of the people living in it.

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 5
Hans: Don’t blame this on corruption (vacations for government officials). These government officials are doing
exactly what they are supposed to do. According to Marx’s theory it is very rational for this system not to spend
much on education. Capitalism simply does not need that many educated people. They would not find jobs and
they might become dangerous for the system. Compare [42].
Message [39] referenced by [41]. Next Message by Oj is [40].
[42] Vansmack: Question number two asks to see if the wealth of a nation can be unrelated
to the wealth of the individuals in a nation. I believe that this process happens in
many nations. An example is the United States’ distribution of wealth. While the U.S is
wealthy in the area of strong military to protect the country against other countries it lacks
in the enforcement of protecting itself from huge problems going on within the country such
as crime, drugs, and gangs. Also just because the government spends money on special
programs the programs do not nessessarily benefit all of the citizens. An example would
be the space program. Although a lot of money is spent on it,the proportion of Americans
it directly benefits is an incredibly small number. Another huge example to back up Adam
Smith’s theory here in America is the Homeless problem. The U.S. is on of the most advanced
nations in the world – yet this epidemic strikes nearly, if not all, of the U.S.’s urban
areas and even beyond.
Hans: Good points. Your examples show that the United States government does not even care about the welfare
of the individuals living there. It spends money on things which are unnecessary for their needs and does not spend
money to make their situation better.
Message [42] referenced by [39]. Next Message by Vansmack is [43].
[48] Eddie: The OPEC nations are examples of wealthy nations but rather poor individuals
living there. The OPEC nations have some of the highest GDP in the world but most of the
people living there are very poor.
Hans: The question is whether the OPEC nations are really that rich. Without the oil most of them would be
nothing.
Next Message by Eddie is [49].
[51] Stxian: The wealth of a entire nation is a very powerful term. But the wealth of an
individual in a nation varys from country to country. During Marx’s time, it was generally
believed that individual’s wealth and income is unrelated and perhaps opposite of the national
wealth. Marx was at a time of the early period of development of Capitalism after the
industrial revolution of the early 19th century. So, at his time and place, government doesn’t
intervene much into people’s life, society as a whole and government doesn’t influence much
on big corporations. Also, government has very limitied law and regulation in protecting the
working class as a whole. So, generally speaking, 19th century capitalist country generally
have a opposite relationship between the wealth of nation and the wealth of individual. As of
today, society have changed a lot as a whole. I have a different perceptions on the relationship
between national and individual wealth. An individual citizen in a wealthy nation can
be poor or wealthy on the following terms: 1, This country is experiencing rapid increase
of wage; 2, have a fairly equalized income distribution; 3, education level of that country is
high. The examples of this kind of countries are: Taiwan, Hongkong and singapore. These
three NICS all have very high foreign reserves as a nation and it also have a relatively equal
and high individual personal incomes. But, in the case of South Korea, another NIC country,
the income distribution is very unequal. Because of S.Korea’s special economic planning of
emphasizing on the heavy industry and the government policies of cooperating with the “big
corporations”. This resulted in a centralization of wealth on few big “Landlords” and “Big
6 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
Capitalist” and shareholders of such corporate giants. Other examples of country that are
similar to the situation of S.Korea is Thailand and phillipnes. Those two country does have
considerable wealth right now, but most individuals are poor except few “Landlords”and
Capitalist merchants. So, in conclusion, Wealth of nation and wealth of individual can go
both ways in our modern society. This is depend on how the governments’ policy and cultural,
social and educational background of that country is and it’s economic openness to the
outside market.
Hans: If you go into these real-life examples then of course there are many factors influencing the outcome. Marx
can at this point only give some very general economic mechanisms which play a role in all those cases, but which
may be overridden by other circumstances. One is: for the rich to be rich,m someone has to produce all this
withoutgetting it. Therefore poverty and wealth in one country condition each other.
Secondly: The wealth of the workers, those who produce the wealth for the greatness of the nation and the
wealth of its ruling elite, must be enough to enable them to produce efficiently, and must also be such that the
workers remain motivated to play along in this system.
Next Message by Stxian is [52].
[58] Pegasus: Some of the wealthy arab states, like for instance Kuwait and the Arab
Emirates, can serve as examples of countries where the wealth of the nation is unrelated to
the wealth of the individuals living there. With wealth I am referring to the possession of
material goods or commodities. In these countries, many of the inhabitants are nomads for
instance. Only a small part of the population partake in a great deal of material wealth. This
is why the per capita income is so high. A small portion of the population is very wealthy,
while most are quite poor (by material standards). The wealth of the country therefore does
not reflect the wealth of the general population.
Hans: Your argument shows that the per capita GNP does no necessarily reflect the wealth of the population. And
you tacitly identified GNP with the wealth of the “nation.” Is there any basis for it? Can one speak of the wealth of
a nation (not meaning the individuals in this nation but the nation itself?) See [196].
(datestring)Wed, 25 Jan 1995 14:50:05 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) In my answer to question
2 I equated GNP with the wealth of a nation. You asked me if there really is such a
thing as wealth of a nation. In my opinion there is (although my outlook might be very capitalistic).
There is such a thing as the state, and the state has a certain economy and a certain
amount of resources. For instance labor force, education, natural resources, production of
commodities etc. A country with a high degree of these will be “richer” because it has more
resources so that its labor force is better equipped to produce more and better commodities.
I am curious, what would Marx say to such a view of wealth??
Hans: Marx would say that the purpose of capitalism is not to produce more and better commodities but to accumulate
capital, and that therefore the wealth of a nation must realistically be measured in these terms.
Message [58] referenced by [196]. Next Message by Pegasus is [59].
[64] Zaskar: An example that comes to my mind is Mexico. I witnessed, while living
there, that indeed there were extremely (monitarily) wealthy people. Some of the wealthy
people seemed to gain their significant wealth by taking advantage of the undereducated
and underrepresented people. In many cases, it was in the best interest of the truly wealthy
people of Mexico to have the underpriveleged class remain undereducated. In this case one
of Mexico’s factors of national social wealth is its human capital. Some individuals ina
corrupt government gain from this national source of capital remaining unproductive.
Hans: This is a two-edged sword. Low educational status makes it easier for the ruling clique to stay in power, but
it also decreases productivity. And such a strategy also creates resentment; a ruling elite which acts this way does
not seem legitimate. By the way, Marxists have serious objections to the theory of “human capital.”

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 7
Message [64] referenced by [44] and [205]. Next Message by Zaskar is [80].
[68] Johny: America, one of the richest nations in the world, is viewed in the way that
everyone in America is rich. This is a falsehood. The wealth of the nation is spent on military
and arms. Many people in America are suffering from starvation and lack of shelter. The
government spends the bulk of the American budget on sciences and development, while
many people are starving to death.
Hans: Are you using “sciences and development” as an euphemism for “the military”? Is this maldistribution of
wealth only the effect of government spending?
(datestring)Wed, 1 Mar 1995 14:44:59 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) Yes, in a way I am using
“the military” as a euphamism for science and development. Because most of development
is gone into the military. It is partly the ways of our society that creates a maldistribution of
wealth, not just government spending.
Next Message by Johny is [69].
[91] Hippie: The U.S. is a prime example. We are one of the wealthiest nations, yet 1%
of the population controls about 40% of the wealth. A very wealthy socialism may also have
very poor people who give all produce to the government in exchange for food and shelter
while the government reaps the rewards.
Hans: In an effort to be even-handed you are comparing the United States today with a hypothetical “very wealthy
socialism.”
Next Message by Hippie is [92].
[105] Sms: The wealth of a nation can be unrelated or even opposite to the wealth of
the individuals living in that nation, depending on the how you view wealth. One could
view wealth as collective talent, i.e., in sports, the arts, or technology. Also, wealth could
be viewed as a comparative advantage such as the cheap labor of third-world nations. This
could be an example in which the comparative wealth of a nation might be opposite of the
individual’s wealth. Wealth must be valued in comparison to something. For example, if
someone asked the question, “Is Mexico a wealthy country?” a response might be, “compared
to what?” Compared to Ethiopia, Mexico might be considered a wealthy country.
Compared to Japan, Mexico might not be considered a wealthy country.
Hans: If Mexico and Ethiopia are wealthy of cheap labor, then the United States is wealthy of minds who are ready
to turn everything objectionable into its opposite.
Next Message by Sms is [133].
[107] Rangers: The question deals with how the wealth of a nation can be different than
the wealth of individuals. An example that I can think of would be the USSR in the 1970’s.
While I’m not sure of actual figures the USSR was at that time spending an inornate amount
of GNP (or GDP, whatever you prefer) on a military build-up. The object was to surpass the
United States in nuclear and military capibility. This created a mass of military might while
the populas lived in lack-luster conditions. Not at all in line with the conditions of people
who lived in a country which was a world power.
Hans: You are the victim of one-sided information. I am sending this to the list with the request: can you recommend
a good book or article which Rangers should read?
Next Message by Rangers is [111].
[179] Vida: (originally sent on January 15, 1995) The wealth of a nation is very often used
as an indicator of how well off that particular nation is, however the wealth of a nation is not
a true indicator of the actual well-being of the individuals living in that nation. For example,
8 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
the wealth of a nation may be top rated, but that may mask how well it provides for the
inhabitants because it is possible for that wealth to be unequally distributed and in the hands
of the few. The nation may prosperous monetarily but only the minority may be enjoying
the fruits of wealth while the majority is suffering. The other shortcomings of a monetary
measure of wealth are it fails to take into account literacy rates, life expectancy, income
distribution, purchasing power, leisure time, crime rates, etc., which all may contribute to or
take away from the quality of life of the inhabitants of that particular nation.
Hans: It is very perceptive of you to identify the wealth of the “nation” with a monetary measure, and the wealth
of individuals with an array of relevant factors of which (not money but) purchasing power is one but not the only
one.
Next Message by Vida is [180].
[186] Renegade: According to Marx’s theory, the wealth of a nation may be seen in
such an item as GNP. However; if it is assumed that this is distributed somewhat equally
throughout the population. As we all know, there is great disparity at the individual level.
What is determined as being wealth again is a relative term. I am personally sick and tired
of economists telling me what the wealth of my nation is. Wealth of a nation is determined
by a supposed mutual consensus,
Hans: Everything in our society is determined by a supposed mutual consensus, but Marx says this social contract
is just a fairy tale.
but I would like to see some real empirical studies or some kind of national survey to see
what we really all think. I would think that if the masses were asked point blank, relatively
few are going to come up with something like GNP. They will probably say something like
our “democratic system”, “our beer”, “our history”, “our space industry” or something else.
Hans: Now you are making wealth a relative concept. This helps the exploitative system too. The capitalists who
are running away with the goodies just can say: be happy with our beer.
From a survival of the species point of view, the wealth of a nation may reside in the
natural resources that are available to the masses. For example, America’s wealth may lie in
its fertile soils. Saudi Arabia’s wealth may lie in its oil reserves (if that’s what the masses of
Saudis think; it could be Mecca).
Hans: Here you were toying for a moment with an objective concept of wealth (which is the correct one), but then
you immediately fell back into the relativist camp. The way we are supposed to think is strongly internalized in us.
explited¿ The wealth of a nation as a
concept is a modern phenomenon. It cannot exist without the notion of “nation”. Hopefully,
the idiom “wealth of a nation” will go out of style soon with the concept of nation
as well. Individually, one’s wealth is in what one says it is–a bank account, a child, an
education, a religion, etc., and it is not determined by a pencil pushing Harvard economist!
Hans: The GNP idea did not come from Harvard, but it is a reflection of the realities of the capitalist system.
Next Message by Renegade is [187].
[196] Sammy: There are many countries that appear to be well off in just looking at the
figures, but it is crucial to understand that the numbers are very superficial. No account
of distribution is taken into consideration, per capita GNP may be very different from the
real story. For an example let us take a fictitious country called Chigerta. Chigerta has vast
natural resources, namely gold and diamond mines. However, the majority of the mines
are owned by the Big Bucks corporation, the leading employer in the nation. The revenues
from these mines makes Chigerta look good compared to their neighbors, but the people of

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 9
Chigerta are actually far worse off than their neighbors in other countries. Big Bucks pays
very low wages. The people have no choice but to accept these wages because there are no
other major employers. The result is that eighty percent of the wealth is held by only the top
ten percent of the people, leaving ninety percent of the people living in poverty.
Hans: You are saying that an aggregate measure such as GNP may not give an accurate picture of the real wealth
of individuals. Now is GNP an accurate picture of the wealth of a nation, is there such a thing as the wealth of a
“nation”? See [58].
Message [196] referenced by [58]. Next Message by Sammy is [197].
[205] Telemark: Question 2: Recently I read an article on various vacation destinations
in the country of Mexico. The words and pictures were so enticing and tempting. Yet, I lived
in Mexico and no matter how spectacular the multi-million dollar beaches, hotels, cruises
and resorts were made to be, nothing will erase from my mind the poverty and sadness that
exists just blocks away where the Mexican Nationals and their families live in shanty towns
and are paid minimal subsistence as they are exploited for their service and appearance. Yes,
they are showered and cleanly dressed when they serve you, but they showered at an adjacent
shower house and given the uniform which has been neatly pressed. At the same time their
little children and family suffer in filth because the distribution of wealth is sending all of
the profits to some capitalist at another location possibly another country.
Hans: Very true! For another view on Mexico see [64]. That other contribution also hypothesizes a possible reverse
causal relationship between the wealth of individuals and wealth of a “nation”, i.e., wealth of those individuals
which due to the structure of the economic system are the individuals that “count”.
While the concept “wealth of a nation” in the above was perhaps taken more symbolic, the natural beauty and
the enticing vacation resorts, in the following you are attempting to define “wealth of a nation” in more substantive
terms, wealth in natural resources:
Many African nations are a good example of a nation’s wealth, which is unrelated to the
individuals’ wealth of the nation. Africa, a great continent full of many resources, minerals
and staples many of which cannot be found in such abundance or at all in any other place in
the world. Yet, because of conquests, imperialism and colonialism which has existed in that
country for centuries the people have been subjected to severe exploitation, misuse and little
education leading to underdevelopment and further despair.
Hans: Nevertheless: is this what Adam Smith referred to when he called his book “Wealth of Nations”?
Message [205] referenced by [518]. Next Message by Telemark is [206].
[261] Chp: The U.S. has numerous millionaires yet has an outrageous national debt and a
homeless population that continues to increase. Muti-million/billion dollar sales figures by
large corporations fail to reflect the unemployment rate and the cost it has on the taxpayers
who are working for them.
Hans: Here the further question might arise why national wealth in capitalism is measured in a way which does
not really reflect the situation of the individuals living here.
By the way, don’t say the taxpayers work for the unemployed.
(datestring)Wed, 25 Jan 1995 17:27:13 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) I did not mean to imply
that the taxpayers work for the unemployed. I was refering to the large corporations when I
stated “them”.
Next Message by Chp is [263].
[370] Eagle: One example would be the United States. The U.S. is considered to be one of
the wealthiest nations in the world, however, many of the individuals living in the U.S. can’t
even afford to feed themselves. Another example would be Japan, another of the world’s
10 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
wealthiest nations. Many of their citizens are farmers and can only live off what they grow
with little money at all.
Hans: You, as many others before you, are identifying the wealth of the nation with aggregate GDP or whatever,
and the wealth of the individual with his or her individual income. My further question is here: is the concept
“wealth of the nation” just a shorthand term for the sum of all the incomes of the individuals, or is there really
something which deserves to be called wealth of the “nation”?
(datestring)Wed, 1 Feb 1995 07:42:40 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) My concept of the wealth
of a nation is what the government “owns”. I am trying to put across my views of how
wealthy the government is compared to the individuals living in that government. In my
examples, I explained that many individuals living in these wealthy governments have little
wealth at all. Am I misunderstanding the question?
Hans: “Misunderstand” is not the right word. At this point I think you still refuse to admit that there is a question.
“Wealth of a nation” is a very familiar concept, but usually we don’t know how to define it, plus we are not even
aware that we don’t know this. Your identification of the wealth of a nation with the assets of its government is
not the solution. When we talk about the US being “the richest nation in the world”, we usually do not think of
the assets of the US government (except perhaps the military and the space program, but not the assets in general).
And you just used the expression “living in a government”, which also indicates that “government” is really a too
narrow term for what you mean.
Next Message by Eagle is [372].
[518] Tuan: My Vietnam country is considered a good example of national’s wealth ,
which is unrelated to the individual’s wealth of the nation. Vietnam, small country but a
great and beautiful land with an abundance of many great resources such as minerals, coal,
oil, and staple that cannot be found in some places in world. Due to war over many years and
especially communist government, Vietnam is hardlye exploited to many great sources that
they have. Moreover, with an uneducated knowledge and non-high technology in Vietnam,
all of good sources is unable to use as wealth of nation that make great contribution to other
countries.
Hans: Vietnam has a lot of national wealth which it is presently unable to use. When you say this national wealth
is “unrelated” to the wealth of the individuals, I assume you mean that despite the (potential) wealth of the nation
the individuals living there are poor. Your remark about the “great contribution to other countries” which Vietnam
can make leads me to think that you want Vietnam’s resources made available to the world market. There are
very many countries with wonderful natural resources which are making great contributions to other countries,
but whose population is utterly destitute. The present Question warned against assuming that national wealth and
individual wealth go in parallel.
[205].
Next Message by Tuan is [519].
[637] Leo: The wealth of a nation does not necessarily mandate that individuals in the
nation will be wealthy. As an example Japan may be strong financially as a country. However,
individual citizens are living in closet size apartments, married to their jobs by working
twelve plus hours a day. I do not consider this wealth of the individual. Whether they are
making more money than me or not, wealth is not only a dollar amount.
Hans: Ok.
Next Message by Leo is [639].
[696] Cmanson: Many third world countries may be very poor as a country but certain
people living in the country could have extreme wealth. The opposite is also true. People in
the wealthiest countries have people in their countries who are extremely poor.

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 11
Hans: You are very clearly distinguishing the wealth of a country “as a country” and the wealth of the individuals in
the country. What is the wealth of the country “as a country”? Many other submissions to this Questions answered:
this is the average wealth of tis citizens, and I kind of complained about this. Any ideas why?
(datestring)Wed, 1 Mar 1995 17:39:33 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) I agree with you that the
wealth of a country is into to be judged on a average of the wealth of the people within the
country. I believe the problem with this theory would be that the money of the extremely rich
would distort the findings. Also the wealth of the individuals is not necessarily the wealth of
the country (thus your original question). I believe the wealth of a country should be based
on the country not the people who live there.
Hans: You mean, the natural resources? No, that is not it.
(datestring)Thu, 2 Mar 1995 22:45:49 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) I do not mean the wealth
of a country is its natural resources. It is the nations collection of commodities which defines
its wealth.
Hans: I think you are evasive now.
Next Message by Cmanson is [697].
[723] Slrrjk: I think a very good example of the wealth of a nation not being reflective
of the wealth of its individual parts would be the United States. Here I am defining the
wealth of a nation as the collective recources (unexploited as well as exploited) that a nation
possesses. Collectively the United States has a great deal of resources/wealth but but it is
not distributed evenly among the individuals within the country. The wealth of our nation
benfits only a small percentage of our country (capitalists) while the many who have helped
produce this wealth (laborers) are left with little or next to nothing.
Hans: I like it that you consider the wealth of a nation to be worth a definition and not just take aggregate GNP or
so. My only quarrel is: is this the definition of wealth of a nation which is relevant in the capitalist world system?
(datestring)Tue, 14 Feb 1995 22:55:55 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) When you say relevant
in the capitalist world system, I’m not sure that I know what you mean specifically, but it
seems to me that thinking of wealth in terms of the collective resources of a country would
be relevant. Why? Because the amount of collective resources that a country possesses
(in terms of commodities) probably defines that particular country’s relationship to other
countries in terms of their ability to make a profit/more capital from their current resources.
For example, the more resources that a country possesses the more likely that country is to
facilitate economic growth.
Hans: yes, the word “relevant” is too vague. Here is what I meant: in a sense, capitalism tries to increase wealth.
But the kind of wealth capitalism is after is a funny kind of wealth, many individuals do not benefit from it.
Resources are only a means to an end, and the end to which they are put to use under capitalism, euphemistically
called “growth”, must be understood better.
If my idea of wealth is all wrong here, please clear up the definition for me. In your
annotations you define wealth as being the accumulation of commodities. Is this the only
definition that is relevant in a capitalistic system?
Hans: This is not a definition of wealth. This is a statement about the social form of wealth in capitalism. It is one
thing, by far not everything, that can be said about this form.
If so what exactly is meant by being relevant. Do you mean relevant in terms of power?
Also, is your problem with my previous answer that all resources are not produced for sale
12 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
and exchange and are therefore not commodities and thus not a component of wealth according
to the definition that you have given?
Hans: Now you are no longer calling it “growth” but “power”. perhaps you see now that it is not quite obvious
and a legitimate question to ask: what kind of wealth (i.e., what social form of wealth) is the aim of capitalism?
Next Message by Slrrjk is [724].
[933] Ledzep: I see the answer to this question in two different contexts. The first can be
illustrated by the wealth of the United States as opposed to its poor or parallel to its rich. The
United States is the top producer in the world, so as far as having a mass of commodities, the
U.S. is the leader, the wealthiest nation in the world. Taking a closer look at the inner-cities,
one finds the poorest of the poor; many individuals have none or little of the basic necessities
such as food, clothing, and shelter. On the other hand, those that have the conventional view
of wealth in the U.S. have it abundantly.
The second way I view this question is that the concepts of nation and society can be
mutually exclusive, that is, nation is the land and society is the people. The nation can have
wealth in the form of commodities which can be determined by amassing all of the materials
that have use-value and potential exchange-value. The wealth of a society has to do with the
richness of the abstractions produced by the society’s individuals eg. song, dance, theory,
thoughts etc. Combining the wealth of the nation and the wealth of the society produces
more than the sum of both parts, a type of “economy of scale”. I sense that I may be off
track with what Marx was saying, but these arguments make sense to me. I have the rest of
my answers on a disk, but it is not compatible with this computer. So, I’m going to have a
buddy of mine send to you later today... it should be before six o’clock tonight, before class.
Thanks, ledzep.
Hans: I will wait for your other answers before I can say much about this.
Next Message by Ledzep is [970].
[934] Yoda: I sent this message on January 17 along with responses to questions 10 and
21.
Hans: Yes I found them, sorry about that. I think I was waiting to find out your code name, and then it somehow
got lost.
Question 2 talks about the wealth of nations being the complete opposite to the wealth
of individuals living in a particular nation. Marx believes that the word “wealth” refers
more toward social reform rather than riches or monetary accumulance as I, myself would
believe. In response to this question, an example between wealth and wealth of nations
could be related to many third world countries. I used to live in the Dominican Republic
which shares an island with Haiti. Both countries are known as some of the poorest in the
world. While speaking with one of my professors at a Catholic University in the city of
Santiago. He mentioned to me that this particular island was one of the richest in all of
Central America. The riches are in the land but you would never know it by visiting. This
island id enriched with gold, amber, oil, natural gas, coal, precious jewels as well as many
other natural resources, yet the island is one of the poorest as far as wealth and education.
They have enough natural and physical resource to enable every person on the island to
have a job and receive an education, but for some reason, these resources are not being used
resulting in poverty for about 90% of the people on the island.
Hans: Interesting. This means, the natural resources is not what makes a nation rich. What is it then?
Next Message by Yoda is [935].

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 13
Question 3 is 6 in 1995ut, 6 in 1996sp, 4 in 1997sp, 3 in 1998WI, 3 in 1999SP, 6 in 2004fa,
7 in 2005fa, 12 in 2007SP, 10 in 2007fa, 10 in 2008fa, 10 in 2009fa, 11 in 2010fa, 11 in
2011fa, and 8 in 2012fa:
Question 3 What is a commodity? Marx does not give the definition of a commodity but an
analysis. How would you define the thing he analyses? (The answer can be given in one
sentence.)
[9] Darci: An elemental unit of economy consisting of infinitely many goods and services
which satisfy utility by consumption of human kind.
Hans: The use value is only one aspect of a commodity; then Marx goes on to say that commodities also have
exchange value. And you are trying to give an analysis, not the definition. Try this question again!
(datestring)Tue, 17 Jan 1995 17:29:20 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) A commodity is anything
that satisfies human needs and desires which can be exchanged for anything else that
meets the same criteria and which are not available other than through exchange.
Hans: The answer I wanted was: a commodity is anything produced for exchange.
Next Message by Darci is [10].
[18] Oregon: A commodity is something that is produced for sale or exchange. I feel
that Marx is looking at the exchange value of each commodity. How much it is worth to
someone else.
Hans: This is a common misinterpretation of the concept of exchange value. The exchange value is the market
power of a commodity, what it can fetch on the market. This is not only dependent on how much others want it but
also on how much of this commodity is supplied elsewhere. I.e., it is a social concept, not an individual concept.
Example raw materials. Commodities have some use and only when the use value is
valued by someone else at a certain exchange price then it becomes a commodity.
Message [18] referenced by [29]. Next Message by Oregon is [19].
[26] Alex: A commodity is something which is produced for sale or exchange. This seems
to be only common sense at first but one must consider that in the production of a good there
are many stages, from natural resources, intermediate goods, and final goods, I think Marx
is saying that all of these levels can be considered as commodities.
Hans: Yes. Means of production produced for sale are commodities. But freely available natural resources (the air
we breathe) are not.
Next Message by Alex is [109].
[33] Ghant: Marx uses the term “commodity” instead of using “good.”
Hans: Well, this is one sentence. But what do you define to be a “good”? And does Marx use the same definitions?
From [34] it becomes clear that you have not understood what Marx means by a commodity.
Message [33] referenced by [34]. Next Message by Ghant is [34].
[45] Ida: A commodity is everything which is produced for sale or purchase.
Hans: Right. But questions marked “review question” will not get you many points because they are so easy.
Next Message by Ida is [46].
[49] Eddie: Wed, 11 Jan 1995 13:28:09 -0700 (MST) A commodity is anything of worth
that may be sold or purchased.
Hans: Marx is using a narrower definition of commodity here: any product produced for sale or exchange. Only
later will he expand this and explain how also those things which were not produced for the exchange can drawn
into capitalism’s flourishing circulation of commodities.
Next Message by Eddie is [50].
[82] Titania: A commodity is anything that can be bought or sold in a capitalistic society.
14 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
Hans: (1) it does not have to be capitalism, and (2) Marx talks about those things which are produced with the
intention to be sold. If the selling is only an afterthought then it is not a commodity.
Next Message by Titania is [83].
[92] Hippie: I would say that a commodity is a good or service
Hans: And what would you think Marx would say?
(datestring)Mon, 30 Jan 1995 13:54:34 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) I think Marx would say
that a commodity could be anything. The value of that commodity is determined by its
scarcity and useful labor put into that object
Hans: Marx does not say that scarcity creates value, only labor creates value. Not useful labor but abstract labor.
(and when he talks about commodities he does not just mean “anything,” he means something very specific.
Next Message by Hippie is [93].
[161] Asmith: A commodity is either a raw material, intermediate, or finished good
produced or prepared (labor added) to be bought or sold.
Hans: Yes, this is the one-sentence answer I was looking for.
Next Message by Asmith is [162].
[239] Deadhead: A commodity is any object, whether a raw material or finished product,
that has value and is demanded by society, therefore it is produced and sold to buyers in need
of the product.
Hans: You are assuming that there is only one way to get things to those who need them: by selling them. Of
course, this is practically true in capitalism, but it is not self-understood.
Next Message by Deadhead is [240].
[333] Stalin: I think that a commodity could be just about anything in which there is a
need and demand for. A commodity could be an idea, an invention, an actual product, or
just about anything.
Hans: You answered the question: which kinds of things can become commodities? – and it is certainly possible
to interpret Question 2 in this way. But what was meant with Question 2, and what most others understood it to
mean, was to give a definition of a commodity.
Next Message by Stalin is [334].
[521] Tuan: A commity is considered a raw materical, intermediate, or finished good
produced or prepared by labor for sold and bought.
Hans: Ok.
Next Message by Tuan is [522].
[639] Leo: Commodity is described as a external object that satisfies human need. The
usefulness of an object determines it’s use value. It has an equal exchange value with an
other object and only differs in quantity.
Hans: No. This is one aspect which every commodity has, but it does not define a commodity.
(datestring)Wed, 15 Feb 1995 18:25:35 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) A commodity can be in
various forms. It can be a good ready to sell, or any combination between the final product
and the beginning raw material.
Hans: Sorry, missed it again. Look in the archive, there you will find the right answer several times.
(datestring)Mon, 27 Feb 1995 15:05:05 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) A commodity is a finished
or intermediate product or raw material, which is produced or prepared by labor hours
to be sold.
Hans: Ok.
Message [639] referenced by [349]. Next Message by Leo is [644].

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 15
[697] Cmanson: A commodity is anything, raw material or finished good, which is desired
by someone willing to pay for it.
Hans: No, this is not the right definition.
(datestring)Wed, 1 Mar 1995 17:33:50 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) A commodity is anything
raw material or finished good with labor added which is desired by someone willing
to pay for it. In other words which is produced for sale.
Hans: What means “in other words”? Things can be desired by someone willing to pay for them without being
produced for sale.
(datestring)Sun, 12 Mar 1995 21:39:37 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) A commodity is everything,
whether raw material or finished good, which is produced for sale.
Hans: Ok.
Next Message by Cmanson is [698].
[991] Mikey: A commodity is a good produced that is to be bought or sold in a market.
Hans: Ok. But don’t expect many points for this question at this late time. Look in the archive for questions which
have not been beaten to death.
Next Message by Mikey is [993].
[992] Sprewell: A commodity is something, whether raw material or finished good, which
is produced for sale or exchange.
Hans: Yes, this is the right one-sentence answer. It was a simple question, this is why it is called a review question.
First Message by Sprewell is [97].
Question 4 Give everyday examples where a familiar idiom is used with a surprising alternative
meaning.
[187] Renegade: An everyday idiom that is used is “that’s cool”. Wittgenstein would say
that its meaning can be found in the way it is used, who the audience is, and who the speaker
is. To a cook: room temperature To a hippy: hip To a Shakespearean scholar: frigid To a Salt
Lake skater: bad (really good) To a gang member: mellow To a nuclear reactor monitor: 300
degrees centigrade. To a rap singer: someone’s name All in all, there is a shared meaning and
this meaning is found in those who share a common linguistic and cultural heritage. There
is always room for error, but when idioms are used–they are usually understood by both the
speaker or writer and audience for whom the idiom is intended. That is what makes Marx’s
writing so difficult: I do not understand his language fluently. There has been an evolution
of meaning of words from the time Marx wrote it and from the time it was translated. The
translators, I am sure tried to preserve Marx’s style and thoughts and at the same time make
the text more comprehensible to a wider audience. However, there are concepts and words
that conjure up different images and meanings for me than I am sure were intended by either
Marx or the translator.
Hans: You are very right about this. But it was not quite the thrust of the question. I meant: take an idiom that
is not quite as vague as “that’s cool” and not quite as unfamiliar as Marx’s terminology and give it a new meaning
which nobody before thought about. Right now there is an advertising campaign going on in the local area which
does exactly this. Does anyone know what I mean?
Message [187] referenced by [2008fa:764]. Next Message by Renegade is [188].
[334] Stalin: I think the best examples are ones which I see everyday talking with my
peers; American slang is a prime example. For instance, if I said “wow, Marxian economics
is bad ass!” I would not be saying anything negative as the conotation would suggest, but
16 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
I would be paying the biggest compliment in American slang. Another phrase “thats cool”
does not mean that something is cool, but that it is liked or popular. Most Idioms can be
taken from slang.
Hans: I received similar answers, but this is not what I was after. For the next edition of the Annotations I changed
the Question to read:
Give everyday examples where a familiar idiom is used with a surprising alternative private meaning.
For once I was not after a social act but after an individual act.
Next Message by Stalin is [337].
[668] Sinikka: “Early in the morning I will hit the road.” “My boss keeps flying off the
handle.” “We just have to bite the bullet.” “My legs are killing me.” “She is a dog.” “Mustard
is hot.” “The weather turned nasty.” “My clock is fast.” “This job is a piece of cake.” “It’s
easy as pie.” “Life is a bowl of cherries.” “I hate your guts.” “I will drop off at the next bus
stop.” “Does this ring your bell?”
Hans: This is not quite what I was looking for. These are idioms which are used in meanings that are different
from their literal meanings. I am looking for instances in which this process is to-to-say reversed: where so-to-say
the literal meaning of an idiom is resurrected, in order to convey a surprising alternative message. It is something
you stumble over: at first you think you know what it means, but it does not make sense in the context, and then
you look at this sentence again and finally say: aha, I get it!
For once I was looking for an individual act, not a social act. This process of discovery of Marx’s meaning in
his language is similar to the process of discovery of the underlying reality behind the social appearances.
So far nobody has given an answer to this Question which I have been satisfied with. (I finally published my
own ideas how this question should be answered thirteen years later, in the last paragraph of [2008fa:764].)
Next Message by Sinikka is [669].
Question 5 Is Marx’s “private” meaning of the idiom “appears at first sight” at the beginning
of Contribution, p. 269:1, entirely unrelated with its usual meaning, or is there a
relationship? (When giving your answer you should also explain those two meanings.)
[669] Sinikka: There is a relationship in the sense that the issue is worth investigating, or
at least has been considered. (Lawyers use the word “appears”, as they argue cases. They
present their assumptions, or claims, hoping to prove them true.) The two meanings: 1) It
appears, but it really is not, if you take a closer look. 2) You realize right away that it is so.
Hans: Yes, you seem to be close to it, although your answer is a little terse. Even if one sees something that is very
apparent (your meaning 2), that what one sees is only the surface and not the whole picture, i.e., there is a little bit
of your meaning (1) mixed in, it still needs more investigation.
Message [669] referenced by [2008fa:764]. Next Message by Sinikka is [670].
Question 6 is 9 in 1997sp and 19 in 2011fa:
Question 6 The first sentence of Capital says that commodities are the social form of wealth
in capitalist societies. What, by contrast, is the content of wealth?
[1] Frosty: According to Marx, commodities are the social form of wealth in capitalist
societies. He analyzes commodities as everything, whether raw materials or finished goods,
which are produced for sale.
Hans: You apparently want to say that (1) Marx analyzes commodities and (2) for Marx, a commodity is everything
produced for sale. This is right, but your formulation: “analyzes commodities as everything produced for sale” does
not capture that. A correct use of the phrase “analyze as” would be: In his paranoia he analyzed everything she said
as an attempt to deceive him. Forgive me for being pedantic about grammar here, but for such philosophical texts
as Marx’s, this is important.

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 17
Given that commodities are the social form of wealth, the content of wealth can be defined
as the people who produce these commodities as well as the people who possess or demand
these commodities. In general, people are the content of wealth in a capitalist society. If
there weren’t people to produce these commodities, as well as people to possess or demand
these commodities, the social form of wealth may not exist.
Hans: This is an interesting and thoughtful definition. You say that the content of wealth is something deeper than
wealth itself, it is the people. People are the purpose of wealth.
I have to say two things about this:
(1) This is not how Marx uses the concept “content of wealth.” Please answer me back with a more detailed
discussion: why does Marx call commodities the social “form” of wealth? Why does he use here the word “form”?
And try again to answer the question what, for Marx, is the content of wealth.
(2) You are not only giving a definition here, but you are also making an important substantive statement about
capitalism by saying:
In general, people are the content of wealth in a capitalist society.
If you mean by this that people are the purpose of the wealth produced in capitalism then Marx would emphatically
deny that. We will discuss this as the course goes on.
I have more to say about this answer but first I would like you to come back with another try: What does Marx
consider to be the content of wealth?
(datestring)Wed, 11 Jan 1995 10:40:19 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) I think Marx uses the
word “form” to describe commodities because he says that almost everything in modern
society can be bought and sold. These commodities are social properties from which people
get satisfaction for their needs. What then is the content of wealth for Marx? Could
he perhaps be talking about the process of exchange of these commodities which can be
used to measure the wealth of a society? Or could be perhaps mean the use-value of these
commodities in a society?
Hans: Yes exactly, that is it. Use values are, in Marx’s eyes, the content of material wealth. The unequal distribution
of money in our society is therefore indeed an unequal distribution of wealth. Your earlier answer, that the
people are wealth, seemed to make the individual responsible for how wealthy he or she is. Kind of: even if one
lives under miserable conditions in a generally affluent society, one should find the inner peace and hapiness to feel
“wealthy.” I say more about this in the file [36].
Next Message by Frosty is [2].
[93] Hippie: The content of wealth could be expressed as a surplus of commodities. A
wealthy person has many things he does not need. Many surplus commodities can be stored
where they collect interest and become more valueable
Hans: Your definition of wealth as the possession of many things one does not need is another variation on the
theme: wealth is not desirable anyway.
Next Message by Hippie is [95].
[724] Slrrjk: The content of wealth to me seems to be the accumulation and possession
of limited resources that hold some type of value to the person who possesses them and also
to others.
Hans: What I don’t like about this (and forgive my nitpicking, but there are so many subtle details in thinking
which Marx approaches differently than we are used to, therefore I don’t see another way) is that you consider
wealth as something subjective: you say it must be of value to the owner. The Marxian concept is just objective use
values.
I also have a question about commodities being the social form of wealth in capitalist
society. Why does it have to be the social form? Can’t it just be a form of wealth alone?
Hans: it is that form in which people in our society relate to wealth, therefore I call it social form. But Marx also
often leaves the “social” out and briefly calls it “form”.
18 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
Next Message by Slrrjk is [765].
Question 7 Why does Marx discuss the form and not the content of wealth?
[19] Oregon: I feel that Marx is looking at the economic assumption that “more is better”.
The more commodities that one has equals the amount of wealth which explains why
commodities equal wealth. Ex. I have a house a Porsche, BMW, swimming pool, and a
basketball court. More commodities equals wealth.
Hans: This is the “messenger effect”: when someone tells you bad news, you blame the messenger for it. Marx
does not think that “more is better” but he will derive in the first chapters of Capital how the commodification of
everything in the economy and the “more is better” curse are related and what is really driving it.
Next Message by Oregon is [23].
[40] Oj: Marx describes the form, because it gives a sense of assurance to the people, a
plan of action. Yet, this sense of assurance is really a false one. The form of a socialist or
capitalist government looks great on paper. The government provides jobs for the people.
It educates everyone to perform a task, moreover, it enables men and women to provide for
their families. The content of the wealth is not so great to hear about. The reality of the
system is that all people do not have jobs, all people are not able to provide housing and
food for their children. People work as peasants out on the privately owned farmland of the
rich owners for hardly anything at all. People are still without homes, without food, children
are growing up poor. These are the reasons that Marx speaks nothing of the content and
substance of wealth.
Hans: I agree with the sentiments which you are expressing here, but this is a complete misunderstanding of the
questions. The question asked about the content and form of wealth, not that of our social institutions. And also
your understanding of the content– form distinction is different than Marx’s. I explained that in [43]. See also [69].
Message [40] referenced by [43] and [69]. Next Message by Oj is [41].
[43] Vansmack: Question number seven asks why Marx dicusses the form and not the
content of wealth. I believe that Marx discussed form rather than content because there is
no content without form. The form of the government indefinately shapes the content of the
system within. The form is the most important because it is a guideline meant to cultivate
the system. Even though the form doesn’t always work out the way it should on paper the
actual form can not be blamed for it. Maybe people’s actions or conflicts with one another
might do something to foul up the system, but the actual form will stay the same. If the form
looks good on paper it can sell the idea in hence it can be used as excellent advertising even
if the actual content doesn’t end up being all that it was on paper.
Hans: “Form” for you is idealization of some reality which may not measure up to these ideals, while “content” is
that reality itself. This is not how Marx uses the word. For him, social form of wealth is the social organization of
who gets what and who produces what, while the content of wealth is the use values being produced. You are also
saying that government is the form and the society itself is the content. This is still another application of the form
- content paradigm which is not meant here.
Similar answers are [40] and [69].
Message [43] referenced by [40] and [69]. Next Message by Vansmack is [44].
[69] Johny: When Marx describes form he gives the people a sense of hope and assurance.
But in reality all the talk about form is a lot of nonsense. The people do not have jobs to pay
for food or shelter for their family. Many people are starving to death. If Marx talked about
the content of wealth he would have to mention the poverty the country is going through.

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 19
Money is not provided for education for people. When education is the key to creating a
better nation.
Hans: I’ve heard this before. See [40] and [43]
Message [69] referenced by [40] and [43]. Next Message by Johny is [70].
[195] Sammy: At this point of analysis it is important to understand the basic factes of the
theory rather than deal with individual items. Due to this fact Marx is discussing the form of
wealth, which is more basic than the individual commodities that make up this wealth. After
this point has been established we can use it to build our understanding as he undertakes
more detailed topics.
Hans: It seems to me that you made here the syllogism:
(1) One has to start with the basics. (2) Marx starts with the commodity. (3) Therefore the commodity is basic.
If you’d ask me what is more “basic”, I would say the use values are more basic. They are always relevant. But
they are commodities (i.e. can be bought for money) only in certain societies.
And then Marx is indeed starting with the individual commodity, despite your claim that the individual commodity
is irrelevant. What do you say about that?
Next Message by Sammy is [196].
Question 9 is 11 in 1998WI, 12 in 2001fa, 14 in 2004fa, and 19 in 2008fa:
Question 9 Describe a situation in daily life in which this “abstractness” of wealth becomes
an issue?
[57] Marlin: In everyday life, people with little material possesions are viewed as less
wealthy than those possessing a larger accumulation. Most commonly, person A with
$100,000 is viewed as wealthier than person B with $50,000. Wealth seems to be measured
as one person compared to another rather than a straight analysis of that person’s
possessions.
Hans: And since wealth becomes measured on a linear scale, the persons themselves are measured by their place
on this scale. This is perhaps implicit in your argument, but you should bring it out explicitly.
Next Message by Marlin is [62].
[111] Rangers: An example that I can think of where the abstractness of wealth becomes
an issue is as follows. An instructor for a US economic history class, started off her class
with a story of what she did this summer. She told us of a conference that she went to in
Italy, it was held on a huge estate. And on this estate a large castle was right is the center
were the lectures were given. The land had a large garden and the home had many paintings.
It all looked like something you see in the movies, she told us. Nevertheless, the people who
lived in the castle had to rent it out for conferences and things such as that. The reason; they
were cash poor. The estate was something handed down from generation to generation, yet
this generation did not have the resoures to even manage the upkeep on the place. I found
this story very interesting. Another example would be when people are millionaries but all
their money is tied up in stocks, bonds or other holdings.
Hans: Very good examples. These people are wealthy, but this wealth does not exist in the “abstract” form but is,
especially in the first case, concrete wealth.
Next Message by Rangers is [257].
[993] Mikey: In reading through the material and answers that were given by others. The
abstraction of wealth is were you have money and are considered by others as wealthy. But
you can not access the money in the form of cash in your pocket at that very moment.
20 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
Hans: There are many other ways, not discussed in the archive, in which the abstractness of wealth can become an
issue. And you apparently did not notice that the two examples you are referring to are contradictory, and cannot
be lumped together into one.
Next Message by Mikey is [994].
Question 10 Name some elements of wealth which even in modern capitalist society cannot
be bought and sold.
[36] Chance: In society, wealth is often times power. Furthermore, there is the common
phrase that “knowledge is power.” I therefore believe that knowledge itself is wealth. Personal,
inner knowledge cannot be bought and sold. One can obtain it, but not through buying
it. Additionally, one can have knowledge and share it, but its essence cannot be sold.
Hans: First of all I want to commend you for your willingness to go below the surface: you are looking for a
deeper concept (namely power) lurking behind the concept of wealth. This is what Marx is all about. However I
do not agree with the logical conclusion which you are trying to draw here – mainly because I think the concept of
wealth is a deeper concept than that of power. When you say: “in society, wealth is often times power,” you mean
“wealth is a source of power.” And “knowledge is power” is an abbreviation of “knowledge is a source of power.”
If both are sources of power, this does not imply that both are identical. After this nitpicking on the logic of your
argument let me hasten to add that I agree with your result that the knowledge, know-how and experience of the
people working in a society is part of the wealth of that society.
Another form of wealth in the business world today is experience. Having the know-how
to make good decisions and guide a business in the right direction. Successful managers and
owners often rely upon past experiences which have taught them valuable lessons. This type
of experience which helps one make future decsions cannot be bought and sold. Experience
is a form of wealth. Again, it can be obtained, but not through a purchase/sell agreement.
Finally, in my personal life, one of my greatest “wealth’s” is happiness. Being truly happy,
having an inner satisfaction and peace is a very valuable form of wealth to possess. However,
from my experience, happiness cannot be bought and sold. Albeit, monetary wealth can
bring temporary satisfaction and happiness, but is not sustainable. Happiness comes from
other sources. The point however is that happiness is wealth in my life.
Hans: I see you making two different arguments here:
(1) Knowledge and experience are part of social wealth which cannot be bought and sold. But you neglect to
mention that if you have the money you can hire people who are knowledgeable and put them to use on almost any
project.
(2) Happiness is wealth. I disagree. Happiness is desirable but it is not wealth. By equating happiness with
wealth you are making it easier for yourself to accept the scandalous inequality of the distribution of wealth in our
society – by the implicit argument: “true wealth cannot be bought and sold”. My own point of view is: instead of
distorting our thinking so that it will be easier for us to accept the status quo, it is our duty to face the unpleasant
facts squarely and to think what we can do about them.
Message [36] referenced by [1] and [46]. Next Message by Chance is [37].
[41] Oj: The wealth that cannot be bought nor sold reaches farther into a nation than just
the materialistic objects. The wealth of a nation is based upon the credentials and substance
of the people living in it. It all starts with education. The government owes the people the
right to be educated. Education provides for a country where the people know and understand
the conventions of its make up. Knowledge is critical in today’s world. Knowledge can
give a person the useful skills to be productive in a nation, which will make that nation even
greater. Education produces knowledge which for a striving nation can neither be bought
nor sold.

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 21
Hans: You are following the rules of good conduct in a capitalist society: Instead of saying that education is good
because it improves the quality of your life (which is, I presume, your motivation for this whole thing), you are
saying that it is good for the state (because it produces good citizens) and it is good because it keeps our economy
internationally competitive. But look at the many examples given in the answers to Question 2 by yourself [39] and
others. Good citizens, of course, do not see the damage their state inflicts on them and others.
Message [41] referenced by [44]. Next Message by Oj is [135].
[44] Vansmack: Question number ten asks to name some elements of wealth which
even in modern capitalist society cannot be bought and sold. I believe that some of the
most important assets to society cannot be bought and sold. Physical traits and intelligence
are very useful assets and yet have nothing to do with money. As a matter of fact having
high intelligence and a high literacy rate can definitely strengthen a country economically.
For instance the most powerful and best off economic nations in the world have a high
intelligence and a high literacy rate. The right forms of systems have been set up enabling
them to get a high level of education therefore making their countries stronger all together.
While money can be used as a tool for wealth, in order to have total wealth there must be
someone capable of using the tool.
Hans: See [41]. and my comments there. For a different twist on the relationship between education and national
wealth see also [64].
Next Message by Vansmack is [134].
[46] Ida: Elements of wealth which cannot be purchased and/or sold are also those that
cannot be seen or touched. This type of wealth may be happiness, friendship, love or freedom,
etc. All of these “items” make a person “wealthy”. But no matter how much money or
gold a person may possess, that person cannot purchase any of these “items”. I think Marx
saw in a capitalist society that the society purchases goods or commodities in order to fulfill
that society’s happiness, when, in fact, none of these important “items” can be purchased at
all.
Hans: Happiness, friendship, love or freedom are desirable but they are not wealth. This is the same error Chance
made in [36].
Next Message by Ida is [47].
[50] Eddie: Wed, 11 Jan 1995 13:28:09 -0700 (MST) Some of the elements of wealth
which can’t be bought or sold are water, air, and life to name a few examples. However,
some people would sure love to sell these types of elements.
Hans: One’s life is not an element of wealth. Are you thinking of the destitute beggar who says to himself: at least
I am alive?
I was thinking anyone’s life is a form of wealth. I think life is a form of wealth that should
not be taken for granted. It may not be a form of wealth in that it can’t be bought or sold but
as a use-value I think it is the most valuable commodity that anyone can attain. Do you not
regard life as a form of wealth??
Hans: In my view, wealth is natural or man-made resources, and by extension also social structures, which help
expand what humans can do. Living in a society which respects life and individual freedom can be considered a
form of wealth, but life itself is not wealth. Life is that what is being enhanced by wealth.
Next Message by Eddie is [159].
[70] Johny: An important element that even modern capitalist society cannot buy or sell
is the family. If everything in society fails, a person will always have the love from its
family. Perhaps one of the most important element in today’s society is our education. The
22 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
government owes us the right to an education. The knowledge of the mind cannot be bought
or sold for any price.
Hans: You call social institutions (family) “elements of wealth.” I think this can be justified under a broad definition
of wealth. One cannot sell one’s family and buy another one, but capitalism certainly has managed to undermine
family relations and love relations by superimposing monetary interests. Money is like acid for interpersonal
relations.
Next Message by Johny is [148].
[83] Titania: a. health b. love c. genuine friendship d. natural intellect e. sense of humor
f. morality g. virtue
Hans: These are all good things, but not all of them can be categorized as wealth.
Next Message by Titania is [84].
[133] Sms: Elements of wealth which cannot be bought and sold might be religious beliefs
and/or artifacts such as art produced strictly for religious reasons. One can imagine items
such as artwork and songs, etc., which are produced and donated to religions. Although these
items are not directly bought and sold, I imagine money might be made by the organization,
or location, in tourism, or by the church followers. Religous artwork, songs, and manuscript
that would hold a market-value, would not be bought and sold in the market, due to their
value to the church. One could think of religous artifacts as a public good to those members
of the church and community who enjoy them.
Hans: This brings me to another question. After those joke-rumors that Microsoft is about to acquire the Vatican:
can Churches be bought and sold?
Next Message by Sms is [137].
[240] Deadhead: In addition to monetary or material wealth there are also other forms
of wealth. Personal wealth can also be comprised of things such as family and friends,
respect, love, knowledge, and happiness. Even though some people may be wealthy in a
material sense they may be lacking emotional wealth and be unhappy while others may lack
material wealth and live an emotionally wealthy and therefore happy life. It is these forms
of emotional wealth that make people happy that cannot be bought or sold at any price.
Hans: If you make the concept of wealth so broad, then it becomes meaningless. Health and knowledge, free time,
the emotional foundation of a caring upbringing, yes, but family and friends or happiness, no. Wealth is everything
that allows one to extend oneself, but one has to differentiate between wealth and the wealthy.
Next Message by Deadhead is [241].
[260] Chp: Wealth seems to affect the way people behave around each other. There is
a certain prestige society bestows on the wealth for no apparent reason. For instance the
wealthy seem to get a seat on an airplane that is booked solid when the average person gets
bumped off due to overbooking.
Hans: You are interpreting this question in an interesting way which I had not intended but which makes a lot of
sense. If you are wealthy in this society, then you not only benefit from the things you have but you also have other
benefits – like not being bumped off an airplane, having luxury hotels waiting for you which always have room for
you, etc. You live in a different world. Marx says that in Chapter 25, R764:1–766: by being wealthy one not only
disposes over more things than others, but also over the labor of others.
Next Message by Chp is [261].
[337] Stalin: I believe that elements of wealth which cannot be bought or sold are things
such as love, character, personality, values, and being a good person. American society puts
a price on just about everything, but these things come without a price tag.
Hans: This is all you are left with after the capitalists have run away with the goodies. But it is not exactly wealth.
Next Message by Stalin is [341].

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 23
[670] Sinikka: Inner peace. Mother’s love. “Chemistry” between two people. Satisfaction
after reaching a goal, or after achieving something. Joy of existing. Natural high, caused by
endorphins, after a workout or a jog.
Hans: Many of those are clearly not wealth, some are borderline cases.
Next Message by Sinikka is [671].
[935] Yoda: This question asks to name some elements of wealth which in a modern
capitalist society cannot be bought or sold. Wealth = Social Form. I know for a fact that
there are many physical objects that cannot be bought or sold in a capitalist society if the
price is right, however there are a few things relating to emotions, genetics and time that
cannot be bought or sold at any price. You can’t (though some would believe you can) buy
happiness or sell it at any price. You cannot pay someone to endow you with great athletic
ability or to be born beautiful or tall. These items have to do with genetics and although they
can be influenced in some ways, you can’t buy the above mentioned services at any price.
Just ask Hitler, he tried. Time is also an object that cannot be bought or sold. Time continues
to pass and we all get older and eventually will die no matter how much you pay to slow
down the process. You might as well spend your fortune before you die, otherwise your kids
will spend it like hungry mongrels.
Hans: ok.
Next Message by Yoda is [937].
[1013] Mikey: You really have to think hard to answer this question. In a capital society
almost everything can be bought and sold. With the exception of your personal attributes,
that each one of us has.
Hans: There is an interesting discussion about this question in the archive, which indicates that this question has
much more depth than it first appears. Too bad you did not read this.
Next Message by Mikey is [1014].
Question 13 is 120 in 1996sp, 14 in 1997ut, 18 in 2003fa, 20 in 2005fa, 24 in 2008fa,
and 23 in 2012fa:
Question 13 Would it have been possible to start with a “common sense” definition of
capitalism, such as, that capitalist production is production for profit?
[5] Ranger: The answer is no! Marx reveals that one must start with an introduction to
the commodity before one can explain capital.
Hans: How does he “reveal” this? My notes claim this, but Marx himself is not explicit about this at all.
A better understanding of the capitalist economy can only be achieved by understanding
its key elements. Marx forms a foundation for the capitalist economy by first explaining the
commodity, a basic element of the capitalist economy. Marx asserts that the commodity is
“simpler” than money, and money “simpler” than capital.
Hans: Again, this assertion is in my notes, not in Marx.
Therefore, the commodity is a needed founding block to the understanding of capitalism.
One cannot simply begin an explanation of capitalism by explaining principles of production
for profit. The facets of capitalism are structured and are built on top of each other. Subsequently
beginning an explanation of capitalism by explaining production for profit would
not follow structured reality.
Hans: You seem to say: reality is structured, and one has to somehow “follow” this structure if one wants to explain
it. Basically I agree with what you are saying, but:
24 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
(1) much of it comes from my notes, not from the assigned readings in Marx.
(2) My notes should have been clearer on the following point: Yes reality is structured, but this structure is not
as “nice” as Hegel and, following him, Marx assumed.
(3) It is not at all clear why the commodity is so “basic”. I asked for this in Question 15, which reads:
Question 15: If Marx wanted to start his book with first principles, why did he pick the analysis of the commodity
and not the analysis of the labor process or the analysis of value?
This is a difficult question, but if you want to try it, you have my permission to submit question 15 as one of the
three questions assigned next week.
Message [5] referenced by [8] and [37]. Next Message by Ranger is [7].
[8] Civic: No, I think that any discipline has to build on stepping stones. Marx could
not simply state that capitalism is “production for profit” without proper explanation of
context and building blocks. Marx feels that the commodity is the basic building block
of capitalism. Just as it would be erroneous for one to understand nuclear physics without a
complete understanding of the atom, one must first be able to digest the commodity in order
to understand capitalism. The problem with beginning with the definition of capitalism is
that the reader may make false or incorrect assumptions because the building blocks and the
pathways have not yet been established. It is clear that certain definitions must be established
before they can be built on for further definitions. It is true that the writer has artistic license
to begin wherever he or she deems appropriate, but the logical sequence should seem clear
such that the reader will not make faulty assumptions. If Marx’s wanted to begin with
the defintion of capitalism he could have done this just for ease of reading, but as far as
definitions go, commodities is the appropriate place to begin. If the reader is unclear as to
the starting point or the logic of the arguments this is the readers responsibility to search it
out such that the arguments make sense.
I think Marx’s starting point is appropriate, but his introduction as to where he is going
and why could have been expanded upon. The one sentence at the beginning of page 125
confused me at first reading, but I was more clear with additional readings and the annotations.
Hans: I think you can learn from what I wrote about a similar response in [5]
Next Message by Civic is [122].
[23] Oregon: -No. Marx analyzes so many different ways of capitalism that saying the
quest for profit is a good definition to start out with would not be right. If one did however
they would have to define mode of production, labor theory of value, the proletariat and the
bourgeois all in the very next paragraph, which would not do him justice. When looking
the the production for profit in your definition you would have to talk about the mode of
production, the exploited worker, alienation, and thus derive your own definition. By taking
all available aspects of what he is looking at then the definition of profit can be formulated
to fit into capitalism.
Hans: Well, for Marx the quest for profits is a central characteristic of every kind of capitalism. You are saying
that hone should not stop with the definition. That is right. But where should one start? You almost say capitalism
is so complex that one cannot really make sense of it. Marx disagrees here. In his view, capitalism is a very specific
animal, following some simple inner drives.
(datestring)Tue, 17 Jan 1995 16:21:09 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) I don’t know where it
starts. Maybee with the desire for mass accumulation of wealth, which brings power. Profits
is not the drive, but power. Profit is only the first step before power. Can one have power
without profit? Or can one have profit without power? I think that when one has profit they

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 25
posses power. And that what Marx gets at when he devises his pyramid of class stratification.
With only the powerful at the top and the week at the bottom. The man or woman with the
most wins in capitalism. Your either the owners of production or the means of production,
or your nothing at all. This distinction is made by Karl, not by using profit, but by using
class status that is derived by profit. Thus profit is a stepping stone for power and prestige,
and that is where the debate of capitalism should start. Then look at the way prestige and
power is formed i.e. profits.
Hans: This is indeed a simple and reasonable starting point. But Marx would not argue like this because he does
not make the people responsible for the social structure they find themselves in.
Next Message by Oregon is [141].
[54] Nena: From my point of view, the reason why Marx intended to start “Capital” by not
using the “common sense” of definition of Cpitalism is because that Capitalist, in general, is
described by a social form of society, in which capitalist production is the “profits”.
Hans: Grammar! What do you mean by that?
It would have been possible that there would be another book of evaluating the course of
Capitalism at that time if Marx started his book by a “common sense” definition of capitalism.
Hans: This is not clear either, but it seems to be something different.
Since Marx wanted his study of Capitalism be different from all the other approaches.
Hans: He just tried to be different? Is that all?
And, he wanted to explore the whole system of Capitalism, including people, society at
large, labor, exchange value, productivity (and the likeness of increase or decrease of it),
Hans: Likeness: did you mean likelihood?
commodity, social structure of Capitalism at this particular time and he also wanted to
discuss whether this process will go on or not, and, in what form the whole society, people’s
morality and modes of production will continue. So, Marx choose not to discuss the definition
of Capitalism first, because of discussing the definition of Capitalism will lead him
into the fragmented discussion of Capitalist profitability in some form and without giving a
whole clear understanding of the capitalist society itself.
Hans: On the one hand you seem to be throwing the most disparate arguments at the question in order to soo if
one of them sticks, and on the other you seem to say: Marx is taking a holistic approach, he should not be narrowed
down or distracted by some artificial definitions.
Next Message by Nena is [55].
[81] Allison: I think that it would have been plausible for Marx to have started with a
“common sense” definition of capitalism, but it most likely would not have fit into his overall
approach. It is difficult for me to estimate what his thinking was in starting at this point
simply because I do not have the entire perspective in view. However my initial impression
is that it is necessary for Marx to begin his explanation dealing with the basis of capitalism,
the commodity. As stated in the annotations the commodity is just as important to an understanding
of capitalism as is the study of a single undifferentiated cell is for understanding
the human body. It seems that Marx is taking the concrete basis of capitalism and addressing
it first in order to build theoretically or abstractly upon it later.
Hans: Excellent point! This is part of the answer to Question 15: If Marx wanted to start his book with first
principles, why did he pick the analysis of the commodity and not the analysis of the labor process or the analysis
26 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
of value? In Notes on Wagner’s Textbook on Political Economy, MECW 24, p. 545, Marx calls the commodity the
simplest “concrete economic thing.” (das einfachste oekonomische Konkretum).
He is beginning with small specifics in order to create a larger, broader picture versus
perhaps painting a broad picture first, by way of some “common sense” definition, and
subsequently getting more specific. Fredrick Lewis Allen stated, “Few things are harder to
observe clearly...than the ordinary, everyday aspect of things.” I think that Marx understood
this well and chose to carefully examine the everyday concrete role of the commodity first
rather than define on assumptions that we all understand commodities and their respective
roles in the capitalist economy.
Hans: Very good answer! Can you supply a precise citation for the Allen quote?
Message [81] referenced by [197] and [324]. Next Message by Allison is [114].
[103] Golfer: No, Karl Marx has established that comodity is the foundation for the
capitalist economy. Karl Marx has implied that comodity is the smallest unit of capitalist
economy, and a good understanding of this concept is essencial. This explanation of comodity
helps put the capitalist economy in proper order.
Hans: I did not want a “dogmatic” answer. I wanted an answer which gives some reasoning.
(datestring)Wed, 15 Mar 1995 15:43:18 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) No, Marx argues that
“reality is structured” I believe this means that capitalism is a combination of all three components;
commodity, money, and capital. A definition of one component would not establish
capitalism.
Hans: Being “structured” means more than that it is a “combination”. Commodity, money, and capital build on
top of each other. Say you wanted to start with the example given in the question: capitalism is production for
profit. Then you would have to explain what profit is, it is value, plus it is monetized value. Therefore you would
very quickly find yourself explaining value anyway. Marx used the simplest concrete thing as his entry point which
allows him to explain what value is, and that is the commodity.
Next Message by Golfer is [106].
[203] Telemark: To start with such a statement would be over simplifying the complexities
of a capitalistic system of Marx’s time not to speak of now. Furthermore Marx would
have later contradicted himself as he builds a argument against the philosophical ideas, values
and morals of the main stream capitalists and the capitalistic system which prevailed in
much of Western Europe. Marx knew how to build an argument by giving a clear view and
understanding of the topic at hand. Marx deliberately explained, discussed and argued to
give his novel ideas and thoughts validity which time has shown would need to be able to
withstand many questions, skeptics and arguments. Marx gave us the reader and student his
knowledge, thought and experience giving us the reader the opportunity to learn of the pros
and cons of different economic systems.
Hans: That “Common sense” may be very deceptive is not only known to those opposed to the prevailing social
order.
If you emphasize so much how novel Marx’s ideas are, you should also add that they are very much rooted in a
long tradition. Marx himself knew that and was very careful to document it.
Next Message by Telemark is [205].
Question 14 Does Marx discuss the commodity and money before discussing capital because
they precede capital historically? (Compare Grundrisse [mecw28]37:1–45:4; R259.)

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 27
[55] Nena: In general, and historically, the claim that the “factors of production”- capital,
land and labor (each have their own contribution, such as interest (profit), rent and wages),
according to their marginal product, remains the basis of both orthodox and classical economics.
Hans: Grammar (misplaced parentheses). Read your answer over and edit it before sending it off!
Also the content of what you re saying is quite wrong. In classical economics (Smith, Ricardo, and Marx), only
labor produces value, land and capital do not contribute to the value of the product!
But Marx put the discussion of commodity and mony at the first, because Marx has
decided that the first category of bourgeois economic and wealth presented is “commodity”.
Hans: He did it because he wanted to do it? Is that all?
The commodity itself appears as unity of two aspects.
Hans: What does that have to do with it?
And Marx also saw commodity and its form is very specific to the discussion of capitalist
mode of production.
Hans: Not only specific to the discussion of it, but specific to the capitalist mode of production itself.
Marx also saw in the furture that money is a form of interest-bearing capital which is
going to dominate the capitalist society’s production function.
Next Message by Nena is [56].
[80] Zaskar: I believe Marx begins his treatment of capital with a discussion of the commodity
and money because they are the building blocks and energy that makes capitalism
possible (in his view).
Hans: I like the word “energy” here. Commodities are in fact endowed with some inner social “energy.” They are
active.
I also believe he begins his treatment here because his definition of the commodity is different
than that of the traditional capitalist’s. I don’t believe historical context is significant
in this question. I imagine Marx is simply laying groundwork for postulating his view of
capitalism.
Hans: I would suggest you consider if there is a link after all. If commodities have “energy”, do they have this
only now or have they had it also in the past?
(datestring)Mon, 23 Jan 1995 13:08:27 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) In response to your
question about the “energy” of commodities, I believe commodities have always had that
energy or value. I believe capitalism is simply a way to exploit the value of the commodity.
Hans: But who is the subject in this process? It is not the humans. The humans are only the puppets, capital (i.e.,
self-increasing value) is the subject.
Next Message by Zaskar is [228].
Question 15 is 20 in 1995ut, 18 in 2001fa, 21 in 2004fa, 22 in 2005fa, 26 in 2008fa, 28
in 2011fa, and 25 in 2012fa:
Question 15 If Marx wanted to start his book with first principles, why did he pick the
analysis of the commodity and not the analysis of the labor process or the analysis of value?
[13] Scarlett: I’m not all that familiar with Marx, but from what I know, I would guess
that the reason he starts with an analysis of the commodity is because that is the basis of
capitalism. Because a commodity is something that can be bought or sold, and a basic
28 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
premise of a capitalist market is that anything can be bought or sold, Marx would begin with
an analysis of the commodity.
Hans: You argued that one should start a book with the most basic premises. Question 15 was more tricky: why
would one say that the commodity is the basis of capitalism, and not the concept of value or the labor process?
They are both very basic too. This is a difficult question.
I think that the reason a commodity would be the basis as opposed to value or the labor
process would be that the commodity is the item that is focused on in a market. It may be
more valid to have a market based on the concept of value or the labor process, but we see
capitalism based on the commodity. Maybe that’s what Marx is critiqueing.
Hans: Yes, the commodity is specific to capitalism, and is is something very simple and concrete, it is not a concept
like value. This is pretty much the reason.
(Back to your original answer:)
I know we haven’t read that far into the Marx yet, but I think that this is a precursor to
his ideas on alienation, and the idea that seeing labor, and in turn, people, can be bought and
sold is bad for the majority of society.
Hans: Yes, excellent point. Now you are getting much closer to the answer of this difficult question.
Next Message by Scarlett is [14].
[30] Sinbad: Marx’s analysis of the basic category of commodity production begins with
the “basic unit” or “fundamental cell” of capitalist economic life, the commodity. He does
not want to start from a basic concept such as value but rather from an “elementary material
phenomenon - the commodity”, as capitalism is the only economic organization based upon
generalized commodity production.
Hans: I think you have this difficult question right. I’d like you to elaborate more on the difference between basic
and elementary, and phenomenon and concept. Value is not just a concept, it is a real agent in capitalist society.
(datestring)Tue, 17 Jan 1995 14:29:26 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) In my discussion of
Marx’s analysis of the commodity, I refer to it as the basic unit of capitalist economic life. I
am implying that is is a starting point or basic unit from which Marx chooses to study. He
would rather begin with the simplest material element, an observable fact, something to be
seen or realized which is the commodity; than try to begin with the notion of value. It is true
that value is a real agent in a capitalist society, however, to begin an understanding on such
a vast and variable subject or concept would perhaps confound the reader.
Message [30] referenced by [37]. Next Message by Sinbad is [31].
[34] Ghant: Marx approached economics from the standpoint of wealth, not scarcity,
which meant dealing with the first priciple of wealth. Marx uses a commodity as the basic
form of wealth, because “things” were around long before “money,” and what money could
represent. So he began with an analysis of commodities.
Hans: On the contrary, Marx does not want to start with eternal principles of wealth, but with the historically
specific social forms of it. You are overlooking that commodities are not just use values. Now it also becomes clear
that you did not heve the right thing in mind when you wrote your terse answer to Question 3 [33].
Message [34] referenced by [33]. Next Message by Ghant is [35].
[47] Ida: I think Marx started his book with the analysis of commodity because he felt that
the idea of the commodity was the center of capitalism. It was the desire for the commodity
and for all commodities which makes a capitalist society do what it does. The fact being
that capitalists produce items for profits to purchase those commodities. The desire for
commodities leads to greed and possibly the downfall of a society. Therefore, we must first

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 29
get an understanding for the item of desire, being the commodity, before we can begin to
understand why that item is desired.
Hans: Marx is a materialist. He does not believe that human ideas are what drives history. In his eyes, capitalism
is not the outgrowth of the human desire for commodities (you probably mean use values). And Marx does not
believe that the individual is a good starting point for analyzing society. It is not individual motivations but social
structures, the organization of production on a social scale, which differentiates capitalism from feudalism etc.
Next Message by Ida is [156].
[56] Nena: The first part of Marx’s book discussed commodity theory and Marx did a
extensive study on this before any other theory. This is because that the analytical process
of commodity theory provides a general theory of production relations of the commodity in
capitalist economy.
Hans: You probably thought something when you wrote all this. Why don’t you just talk normal?
It also serves to distinguish Marx’s critique of political economy from bourgeois economics.
By studying commodity theory first, Marx can reveal to us the naked reality of capitalist
relations of production and the unity and conflict between productive forces. And Marx
thus saw commodity as the most basic and important topic of his discussion and critique of
capitalism.
Hans: You are getting better. Perhaps if you answer this same question three more times, you would be able to
recognize what you are really thinking about it and say it.
Next Message by Nena is [167].
[197] Sammy: When Marx compares the commodity to a human cell he is stating that the
commodity is the most basic component of capitalism. Choosing to start with an understanding
of this item gives us a foundation on which he can base his more complex arguments.
This is what I would call a bottom up approach, conversely he could have chosen a top down
approach, which would be to lay out his arguments and then try to work them down to the
basics. I for one am relieved that Marx chose the approach he did. This is hard enough to
understand as it is.
Hans: I like what you wrote but this is not really the answer to the above question. So far, [81]. has had the best
insights for the question at hand.
Ps. Hans, are we trying to develop a basic understanding of Marx’s ideas, or are we
supposed to be really getting messy trying to find out why everything is going on? I am not
really sure if I should be looking through a microscope for the fine details, or standing back
in order to catch the whole picture.
Hans: Well, here you are addressing a basic issue of this class. Obviously, in the Annotations I am trying to get
“messy” as you say, and microscopic. Shouldn’t we first get a rough overview before delving in detail into such a
philosophical text? I think what is most helpful of Marx is to understand his method and his approach to seeing our
society. This will give us better insights than his theory of crises or the falling rate of profit.
But can I expect you to understand such sophisticated stuff if you never have read Marx before? My inclination
(but perhaps this is wishful thinking?) is to say: this is an advantage because then you are not burdened with wrong
previous interpretations. I want to give you the opportunity to learn it right the first time. Without getting somewhat
“messy” you will never understand what it is about, because we are so predisposed to a different way of thinking
than Marx’s.
I am hoping to achieve this with intensive two-way interactions on e-mail. I haven’t gotten up to speed yet
because I am developing at the same time the software to put all your answers with my comments on a hypertext
document for everyone in this class to see. This is almost finished, and I think it will make a great difference.
Next Message by Sammy is [330].
30 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
Question 16 Sum up once more the arguments why Marx’s Capital starts with the commodity.
[10] Darci: Marx’s opening argument for beginning with commodity is precisely that it
is the elemental unit of economy. It is the buying and selling of commodities which is the
essence of market. Without consumable commodities there is no market–nothing to base a
society on.
Hans: There are many societies without markets. Marx is very aware of what is historically given and what is an
eternal natural necessity. Markets are historically given in some societies, but not every society has to have one.
If one looks closely at his statements regarding economy, one can see that buying and
selling of “useful” things is economy.
Hans: This sounds more like neoclassical economy than like Marxism. Marx held that the production process has
a very fundamental role in any society.
Society exchanges commodities to satisfy human needs (what those needs are is irrelevant).
The mechanism by which this occurs is called the market. Commodity is the input,
exchange of those commodities the output and “value” the machine. Society sets the measure
for exchange by assigning value or weight of usefulness to a commodity.
Hans: You are right that society somehow assigns value to the commodities. But according to Marx, this does not
go by the “weight of usefulness” of that commodity. What does it go by? Please respond.
(datestring)Tue, 17 Jan 1995 17:29:20 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) Use values are determined
by society. I would like to try this one again. Capital starts with commodity because
it is the reason for social interaction as applied to economics. If a human being could or
would produce all of his needs and wants, there would be no need for exchange of commodities,
therefore, no reason for economic participation. But because societies provide
for the exchange of commodities (allowing individual members to decide what they will or
won’t provide for exchange) starting at this point makes sense. Then the additional elements
of use value and exchange value fall into place.
Hans: You still talk about societies in generic terms, as if all societies organized the transfer of goods from producer
to consumer by exchange.
But back to your old text.
An example of this might be to examine a simple market. Suppose a person has been out
in the desert without food or water for a while and in his pocket he has gold. Another person
arrives on the desert with food and water (he is planning on returning to the city shortly).
The two could exchange the items each has and both be satisfied with the outcome.
Hans: This is not a society but the encounter of two individuals who clearly come from a capitalist society. Only
members of a capitalist society would risk their lives in order to look for gold, and only members of capitalist
societies would so blatantly take advantage of someone who is near starvation. A society always has a production
process. The interaction you are describing is not the exchange of commodities but I would call it extortion. There
is no value involved, because there is no ongoing social production process.
This market determined by the society of two that the gold and the food and water were
of equal value. The exchange was made and each satisfied by the outcome based on the
human needs of each. What the value of the commodities where was determined by the
human needs at the time of the exchange. Marx explains this in Capital in paragraphs 2 and
3 on page 126 as he discusses useful things and exchange-value.
Hans: No, in Marx’s theory, exchange value is determined by value, i.e., by labor content.

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 31
Next Message by Darci is [11].
[37] Chance: Marx’s argument for starting with the explanation of the commodity is as
follows.
Hans: Marx himself does not say much about it at this point. Most of the arguments which you are trying to
reproduce here are mine, in the Annotations.
First of all, to know where one should start, one must have results. In other words, there
must be some facts and circumstances to incline one to start where one is starting. However,
Marx has no results, and therefore chooses a starting point.
Hans: No, Marx does have the results, therefore he knows where to start. But the reader cannot yet know at this
point whether this is the right starting point, and Marx cannot convince the reader yet that this is the right starting
point because he has not yet developed his results to the reader.
Secondly, Marx explains that a good place to start is with the basics. Concepts build
upon one another, and a solid understanding of the foundation is necessary to understand
the building blocks which go upon the foundation. It is not easy nor useful to explain to an
apprentice how to do the finishing work on the stairway oak before he or she has been taught
how to build the stairway.
Hans: Yes, this is pretty much what I say in my Annotations. But look at Question 15 and the answers to it,
especially [30] and [5] This is an unfinished discussion right now, and I invite everyone to jump in.
Finally, I believe Marx is arguing that the concepts of commodity, money, value and
capital are intertwined. He therefore chooses the concept that would be most easily separated
from the others. His discussion of commodity is as independent from the other concepts
as possible allowing for readers to gain some simple understanding before attempting to
understand the relatedness of the concepts.
Hans: Yes. I like the spirit of this. There are some invisible threads between these concepts (as well as between the
realities which these concepts represent), and some places are better than others if one wants to start disentangling
it all.
Next Message by Chance is [38].
[59] Pegasus: Marx’s CAPITAL starts with the commodity because it is the elementary
form of wealth under the capitalist mode of production. He also states that reality is structured
in layers.
Hans: He does not say this explicitly. I say it in my comments, and Marx says many things which amount to this,
but he never says in so many words “reality is structured in layers.” This is Bhaskar, not Marx.
It makes sense to start with the most simple form which is the commodity. Both money
and capital are more complex than the commodity.
Next Message by Pegasus is [61].
[245] Marinda: Marx believed that understanding commodities is essential to an analysis
of capitalism because commodities are obviously important to capitalists,
Hans: The argument above may have played a role, but the argument below did not. Marx did not just look for
something which was not udnerstood. He based his mode of presentation of his research on the nature of the thing
he was investigating.
commodities are widely thought to be understood but they are not (and Marx offered
new insights) and probably the rest of his argument and critique of Capitalism will be built
logically upon his discussion of commodities. I think the analysis of commodities allows
him to introduce his ideas of value and its source (labor) which require a new vocabulary or
redefinition of old words, so that we will be able to understand the rest of the argument. His
32 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
use of the term “elementary” I interpret quite literally, as meaning that commodities are to
capitalism as atoms (“the elements” recently discovered in physics at that time), as atoms
are to physical objects and single cells are to bodies. It is a typically scientific and logical
position that one cannot understand the whole without investigating the parts.
Hans: As long as you don’t insist that he has to start with the individual when analyzing capitalist society, i am
satisfied.
Perhaps the best reason for beginning with commodities is that they are so obvious and
yet (in Marx’ eyes) misunderstood. Everyone can see that commodities make the world
go round. Everyone is busy making, buying, selling, controlling, trading and fighting over
“stuff”. Wasn’t it some 20th century US president that said “the business of America is
business” ? I think it is the same for every government. The most ancient buried cities
are practically defined as cities by the presence of specialized shops and business districts,
which implies division of labor and then exchange.
Hans: Division of labor is possible even without exchange.
Every significant amount of political power accumulated anywhere seems to be used for
enriching the powerful in terms of getting or controlling more things made by other people
and buying and selling for profit.
Hans: Today, yes, but historically it is a relatively recent phenomenon.
But the fact that interest in commodities is a major feature of most societies and human
life, combined with the “received wisdom” that we are taught about the righteousness and
benefits of capitalism, and the fact that we have not experienced anything else, result in
people often not even questioning the nature of commodities and value. Therefore, although
commodities may seem to be simply an obvious place to start, Marx is also preparing to
use the provocative challenge that “everything you think you know about commodities is
wrong!”
Hans: Yes, those little bastards.
Next Message by Marinda is [249].
[1015] Mikey: Everything is surrounded by the commodity. This is the elementary form
of capital. Once we understand this then we can understand capitalism.
Hans: Kind of right, but you should try to be more exact with your pronouncements. Not “Everything is surrounded
by the commodity” but “In modern capitalist society, we are surrounded by commodities everywhere.” It is not only
the elementary form of capital but also of all other forms of wealth.
First Message by Mikey is [152].
Question 17 is 22 in 2000fa:
Question 17 Give examples of production processes which do not result in products that
can be taken away from the producer and individually consumed by whoever gets hold of
them.
[2] Frosty: One example of a production process which do not result in products that can
be taken away from the producer and individually consumed by who ever gets hold of them
is producing food in your home. Take for example, baking a cake. One day I come home and
decide to bake a cake. I go through the process of baking this cake from scratch. Once the
cake has been completed, I decide to consume the entire cake. When I, the producer, have
consumed the entire cake, there is nothing left for anyone else to get a hold of to consume

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 33
themselves. This example holds for any other food item produced and consumed entirely by
the producer.
Hans: Cakes can very easily be taken away from the producer and consumed by others. I was not asking for a
social arrangement in which this is not the case, but for a production technology in which this is not possible. You
should look at the question in the context of the text surrounding it.
(datestring)Wed, 11 Jan 1995 10:40:19 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) I can’t think of any
technological processes which do not result in products than can be taken away from the
producer and individually consumed by whoever gets hold of them. In any society, the
process of exchange is an important one. Whether the satisfaction of exchange is merely
for profit or consumption, it makes no difference. Is it then safe to assume that production
processes are then for other individuals rather than the producer?
Hans: The argument in my notes was concentrating on products which are “up for grabs” in the time interval
between production and consumption so that it is possible to take them away (and, implicitly, products for which it
also makes sense to take them away, i.e., products whikch can be enjoyed only privately, this is the connection with
Question 25 which some of you made). Your haircut cannot be taken away from you, or your education, or your
health.
Next Message by Frosty is [3].
[25] Tsunami: Some examples of production processes that can not be appropriated and
individually consumed are those called “public goods”: national defense, fire and police
departments, public education. Nonetheless, I remain quite skeptical that there are products
that cannot be stripped from the producer and individually consumed in some capacity.
Knowledge, education, women’s reproductive rights, etc. have been appropriated at some
time or another. National police and military forces regularly turn against the people, leading
to coup d’etats and bloody civil war, as in Nicaragua and Cambodia.
Hans: Good argument. Nevertheless I think the trend is in this direction, even if it can never be achieved 100 per
cent. For instance it is possible to extract knowledge from knowledge producers but leave the knowledge producers
themselves pretty much ignorant, but it is tricky, and the more social sciences develope the trickier it will become.
Next Message by Tsunami is [102].
[38] Chance: Very often in today’s technologicly advanced society, manufacturing processes
do not result in a product that is ready for consumption by whoever gets hold of them.
In fact, many times one company’s output becomes the next company’s input. This is a very
different type of manufacturing than the tree put into the process and out comes paper. Or
the pig run through the mill and out comes bacon. The complexity of society as well as its
massive advances in technology have changed the adage that in goes raw materials and out
comes a product for sale to consumers. For example, chemical production company’s have
myriad inputs of raw materials to develop a certain substance. Often times that substance
which comes out of the process is the next company’s input to their process as a preservative
of their food product. In the steel industry, metals are melted and shaped and come out not as
an end user product. However, that output becomes the input for automakers to develop the
body covers for their cars–a product which then becomes ready for end-user use. In essence,
many companies in the world today only business is transforming their inputs into ouputs
which can become others inputs.
Hans: You latched on to an error in my formulation. Of course, as the Question stands, any production process
which produces an intermediate product falls under this category. I did not mean that. The Questionshoud read:
“individually or productively”. Thank you for pointing this out. Had this been graded, you would have received
full credit for it.
Next Message by Chance is [144].
34 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
[84] Titania: a. studying b. exercising c. participating in enjoyable persuits (ie hobbies)
as a form of relaxation d. sleep-rest e. digestion (taking in food and using the energy it
produces). f. thinking
Hans: How about dozing and looking out of the window?
Next Message by Titania is [126].
[180] Vida: The production process is considered to be the action of the product being
taken away from the producer and consumed by another. The relation of the producer to
the product, according to Marx, is entirely an external one. However an example where
this theory does not hold true is the skills learned through on the job experience. Clearly
the skills learned, such as computer literacy, are products in themselves of the production
process. These skills are added to the producer on an internal level and cannot be taken
away from the producer and consumed by whoever gets hold of them. In a sense these
skills are added to the individuals net assets on an internal level. In fact, the skills that are
learned can be used in such a way that particular individual may attain more capital through
a maximization of these newly learned skills.
Hans: This seems to be the hope of many of you. If you are skilled, you think, this cannot be taken away from
you, and therefore it will not matter so much that the means of production are monopolized by the capitalists. But
don’t forget that with skills alone and no material means of production you cannot produce anything. And the
capitalists have in a certain sense managed to take away the skills from the workers by building all the skills into
the machinery and leaving the worker with the menial tasks only.
Next Message by Vida is [181].
[206] Telemark: I believe Marx will discuss a few of these examples later in Capital.
Individual learning long and usually time consuming production process of a mind at work.
Example: I speak Spanish, a language that I grew up with and no matter how useful German
would be in this class I cannot purchase that knowledge nor acquire it from another or steal
it. Another example is ones values and belief system which comes from a life time of
experiences, surroundings, influences and ones own personality. Again another production
process, possibly not one that is consciously thought of daily, yet still many inferences shape
and mold.
Hans: ok.
Next Message by Telemark is [207].
[387] Alex: An example of prodution processes that do not result in products that can
be taken away from the producer and individually consumed by whoever gets hold of them
might those processes that produce public goods. Public goods are non-rival in consumption,
and the they are not exclusionary with respect to the benefits.
Hans: See [390].
Next Message by Alex is [411].
[388] Chp: The production of microchips can only be used by manufacturers of computers,
the production of airbags best suites car manufacturers, production of tire pumps best
serves those with bikes.
Hans: Yes, this was an unintended loophole in this question. I meant to say, consumed individually or productively
by whoever gets hold of them.
Next Message by Chp is [485].
[389] Makarios: These are products that are produced usually as a service to the public.
Some examples are roads, public transportation, parks, T.V., and radio. Any product that
anyone in society, regardless of individual wealth, can use freely.

Hans: Ok.
U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 35
Next Message by Makarios is [394].
[390] Sprewell: Public goods are products that cannot be taken away from the producer
and individually consumed. Things such as roads, street lights, and national parks are paid
for and used by the public but they are never consumed.
Hans: Do you mean by “never consumed” that they are never used up? Roads need a lot of maintenance, ploughing,
etc. So do National Parks open to the public. You probably mean that there is little crowding and or that they must
be provided to all in equal amounts. I gave some references in [371]. This answer is really an answer to Question
22 [373]. The present question asked about the production processes, and you are saying nothing about those. If
you select very similar Questions to answer, then you should differentiate between these Questions, and not simply
write the same answer twice.
Message [390] referenced by [373] and [387]. Next Message by Sprewell is [414].
Question 18 is 23 in 1996ut, 20 in 1998WI, 27 in 2005fa, and 30 in 2008fa:
Question 18 Using modern experience, describe some implications, good or bad, of the indifference
of market relations towards the nature of the needs which the commodity satisfies.
[21] Ann: The classic example of a commodity that has bad implications on mankind,
but is not taken into consideration from the distributer, are cigarettes. Millions die each year
from smoking related diseases. The cigarette distributers do not think of these serious effects
only the profits that can be made.
Hans: Good example. And it is not an oversight; the tobacco industries are very aware of the effects which smoking
has on health.
Next Message by Ann is [22].
[137] Sms: Over the past decade there has been a large push for items such as mountain
bikes, roller-blades, snow boards, etc. in which there is a high probability of the user
becoming injured. Other than opportunities to increase the producer’s profits, i.e., manufacturing
safety items, I would find it difficult to believe, that market is concerned about the
risk associated with these activities.
Hans: Yes, these kids should wear helmets, but you don’t see many pictures with skiers, snowboarders, roller
bladers etc with helmets. The industry thinks this would hurt sales. In Utah, not even motorbikers must wear
helmets.
Next Message by Sms is [509].
[162] Asmith: Violence sells! Violence is widely used in the entertainment industry
and increasingly popular in the U.S. despite its adverse affects on our increasingly violent
society. While the causal relationship may not be crystal clear for some, however, it is clear
that the entertainment industry is doing little to objectively investigate its effects. Vices such
as alcohol and tobacco are profitably produced despite their readily apparent consequences,
even readily apparent to their producers.
Hans: Yes, the tobacco producers know exactly what they are doing.
Next Message by Asmith is [163].
Question 20 is 35 in 2008SP, 35 in 2008fa, and 37 in 2012fa:
Question 20 Bring other examples of relative “properties” such as beauty or use value.
[27] Braydon: One of the most obvious example of a commodity with relative properties
is money. It is a minted coin or printed piece of paper and we as a society place a certain
36 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
value on it. $100 piece of paper is of more worth than a $1 piece of paper. It is a relationship
between the properties of the thing and society’s bartering system.
Hans: Money is not a property. The properties of money have a social origin, but this does not necessarily make
them relative properties. In subjective utility theory, value is a relative property, but in Marxian theory it is not.
Art is another example. The ever famous expression, what is art? comes to mind. Art
has properties which are innate in the art, ie. color, shapes and forms. They are essential
properties of the art, but accepting it as such is only a matter of opinion and it is “in the
eye of the beholder.” Information can also be thought of as having relative properties. It has
distinct properties, ie. words and numbers. The relationship between these properties and
an individual is purely up to the individual himself. What value does scientific information
have to an artist?
Next Message by Braydon is [28].
[698] Cmanson: Other examples of relative properties would be health and all personality
traits.
Hans: These properties are not easily described in terms of physics and chemistry, but they are very real properties,
not at all relative.
Next Message by Cmanson is [699].
Question 21 is 29 in 1997WI, 38 in 2008fa, and 40 in 2010fa:
Question 21 Take some simple object, a shoe or a rubber ball, and differentiate between its
properties, its utility, and its use value.
[52] Stxian: Let’s take a simple good as an example: a pair of shoes. The properties of a
pair of shoes itself has none.
Hans: Yes it does. Its properties are porosity and elasticity, weight, the abrasion and friction properties of its soles,
mechanism for fasten it to the foot (shoe laces).
Imagine a little green man from Mars who has never seen a human being but finds an old shoe somewhere in
the ice near the south pole and writes a report about its properties.
It use value depends on the shoe’s utility. There are three usefulness in which humans
use. First one is that we can wear it on our foot, so it’s easier for us to walk; the second is that
sometimes, shoes are made to distinguish one’s social statue, sexuality and personality. The
last human use of a pair of shoes is we can use the shoes to throw it at someone we “dislike”
or angry to. These three usefulness all determine the utility function of the shoes, because
each represented a different degree of satisfaction. The use value of the shoe is depended
on how each individual human beings’objective and purposeto acquire a pair of shoes. The
most expensive use value in terms of money is to use shoe as a source of showing off, to
distinguish you as a upper class in the society. The most common use value of the shoe is
that people buy them to wear them so they can walk better outside of home.
Hans: Good.
Next Message by Stxian is [53].
[65] Translat: A pencil has value from all of Marx’s aspects.
Hans: You are confusing the trio of property, utility, and use value with the trio substance, magnitude, and form of
value.
(datestring)Tue, 17 Jan 1995 10:06:13 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) You are right, I was
confused.
Hans: Therefore you are answering a different question than the one asked.

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 37
It has substance from the labor needed to assemble the pertinent materials such as wood,
graphite, rubber, paint, etc.
Hans: Also from that needed to “harvest” the materials, as you say.
Magnitude would come from the necessary labor time in harvesting the materials and
combining them into the final product, a stick that writes. The exchange value comes from
the price that the market would endure for the purchase of this instrument.
Hans: The exchange value does not “come from” the price. The price is an expression of the commodity’s exchange
value.
Another try:
Question 21. Take some simple object, a shoe or a rubber ball, and differentiate between its properties, its
utility, and its use value.
(datestring)Fri, 20 Jan 1995 13:28:53 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) Properties of a pencil
would be the different elements that it is composed of.
Hans: No, properties are qualities, not things.
Wood for instance could be used in various ways including the outer shell of a pencil.
(R125:3)
Hans: Good that you are giving me the precise page reference. Now I see how you come to the conclusion that
properties are things. The text says: “Every useful thing ... is an assemblage of many properties.” “Assemblage” is
a weird translation of the German: “Ein Ganzes vieler Eigenschaften”, perhaps “totality of many properties” might
be better. Loosely translated, Marx simply says here that the thing has many different properties. I guess one of the
properties of wood which is relevant for pencils is that it can be ground down easily for pencil sharpening; plastic
would not do here. Wood has many other properties which are irrelevant when it is used for pencils, but it still has
them.
Utility would be the use that the owner of the pencil would use it for, be it writing,
marking, etc.
Hans: Yes.
I am a little confused regarding “use-value”. Your annotation of use value appears different
from the one I have cited. I believe you are saying that use-value is a combination of the
pencil and wants of the owner.
Hans: It is its utility, i.e., its fitness for human consumption, regarded as a property of the thing. (Just like “beauty”
is not really the property of something, but it is still attributed to the thing.)
The use-value definition in the book appears to be, “a combination of the wood, graphite,
(resources used to manufacture the pencil) and the labor involved in combining the material
into an object that can be used.” [133:2/o] Please clarify.
Hans: Another misunderstanding. This time not due to the translation but Marx’s terseness in the original. In
126:1 Marx writes: “The body itself of the commodity, such as iron, corn, diamond, etc., is therefore a use value
or a good.” Marx means this as a terminological convention, which was clearer in the first edition, cited in the
Annotations: he will sometimes call the article itself “a use value.” Therefore, when he says at the beginning of
133:2/o “Any of the use values coat, linen, etc., ... is a combination of two elements,” he does not mean the use
values of the coat etc., but the coat itself.
Next Message by Translat is [66].
[936] Sinbad: The properties of a rubber ball, such as its potential to be tossed or to
bounce on the floor are considered dormant until it is activated from its relations to other
things. So until someone throws the ball or bounces it, the properties of a rubber ball will
not manifest itself.
38 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
Hans: “Potential to be tossed” is not a property; it is something one can do with it, which depends on its properties,
but it is not a property. Same thing with: potential to bounce on the floor. A property of, say, a solid rubber ball,
would be its elasticity, its electrical conductivity, its shape, etc.
The utility of a rubber ball is the declaration of its properties in relation to human life.
It is the ability of its properties (to toss or be bounced) to serve human needs. It is not
the satification which the person derives from these properties, but it specifies the useful
properties themselves.
Hans: Well, what, then, is the utility of a rubber ball?
Marx states, “the utility of a thing gives it a use value”. Therefore, the use value of a
rubber ball is its utility. It is a relative concept, considered as a property of the rubber ball
itself. An example of a relative property of a rubber ball is “fun”. It is not a property of the
rubber ball to be fun, instead, fun is a relationship between the properties of the ball and the
human senses and feelings.
Hans: I think you mean “delightful” as a property. Fun is a noun, properties are adjectives.
Next Message by Sinbad is [962].
[937] Yoda: Question 21 asks that I differntiate between property, utility and the use value
of a simple object such as a shoe. Use Value = usefulness of a thing Utility = how this thing
can be used Property = the object’s potential, only to be used in relation to other things.
Hans: These are not the definitions given in the Annotations. I don’t think they are sharp enough to make sense.
All three of these terms “appear” to be similar at first sight but they all have slightly
different meanings. The Use Value of a shoe depends on where you live, the terrain, temperature
and many other variables. I wear shoes because they are very useful to me. They help
to protect one’s feet as well as keep them cool or warm. The Utility of a shoe depends on
what it is used for. I can use a shoe for walking, climbing, dancing, lounging or attending a
formal meeting. There is a different shoe for every occasion you can think of. The Property
of a shoe is also related to what it is used for. For an important meeting where I am wearing
a suit and tie, I would wear a pair of dress shoes to fit the occasion. To play basketball, I
would wear a pair of gym shoes that are comfortable, soft, durable and give me good ankle
support and enhance my performance. If I wore a pair of hiking boots or dress shoes while
playing basketball, I could possibly injure my foot or develop a blister.
Next Message by Yoda is [940].
Question 22 is 30 in 1995ut and 30 in 1997WI:
Question 22 Are there things which can be useful without being in the exclusive possession
of the user?
[3] Frosty: For many things, you need to have possession of the things themselves in
order for it to be useful, but, I can think of one thing that can be useful without the exclusive
possession of it. The thing to which I am referring is MONEY. In modern society, a great
majority of people possess credit cards or checking accounts. These have become the alternatives
to carrying money. Although money is not actually in possession, the purchasing
power still exists. The payments of money for these purchases are deferred (when using a
credit card), or automatically withdrawn from a bank account (when using checks). So in
conclusion, money can be useful without actually having possession of it at the time of use.

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 39
Even maybe one day, the possession of money will become obsolete, but the usefulness of it
will remain in existence through alternative methods, such as credit cards or checks.
Hans: Money is the most basic example of something which can not be used jointly but whose benefits accrue to
its owner alone. Your answer is therefore located exactly on the opposite end of the spectrum of what I was asking
for. You picked up on the countereffects which the rigidity of private property rights calls forth and lost sight of
why these countermeasures became necessary in the first place. Money is so exclusive that a system of deferred
payments (by checks or credit card) has been created to prevent that every business transaction is slowed down or
hindered by the necessity of handing over cash at the same time. This is Marx’s function of money as means of
payment, described in Section 3b of Chapter Three of Capital. This creates the appearance as if money were not
really a constraint. But these deferred payments are carefully organized in such a way that they create the needed
flexibility without compromising ownership rights.
To say it again, from a different angle: If you draw on your credit line, then you are using other people’s money,
which means that these other people cannot use this money for themselves. They will therefore probably charge
you interest for it, and they have taken very specific precautions to ensure that you will pay the money back to them.
And they may decide to no longer extend credit to you, in which case you are out of luck. Ask those who do not
have established credit or who live in neighborhoods where they cannot get mortgages on their homes, or anyone
who ever tried to rent a car without a credit card, or someone who needs medical care but cannot pay for it, etc.
(datestring)Mon, 9 Jan 1995 20:15:18 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) I must have misunderstood
the question so I am giving it another try.
Hans: If you say something like this it would be helpful if you would elaborate how you had misunderstood the
question. Because if you misunderstand it chances are others will too. My guess here is: you realize that I am after
the basic principles buried in the use value itself, rather than social arrangements.
I believe that there are things which can be useful without being in the exclusive possession
of the user. There are many examples. The first example is public transportation,
such as the bus system. The bus system is available to anyone. There are no restrictions to
the passenger, excluding the fare of course. One user cannot exclusively ride the bus alone
without permitting others to ride.
Hans: But a bus can be full! I think you are on the right track, however. A computer program or a music recording
can be copied and used by many without this affecting the utility of any individual user. On the contrary, individual
users may gain if others know the same word processor so that they can exchange documents, or if others help
debug the program, or if they can talk to others about the music. The telephone is another instance of something
which you cannot use individually. If you are the only person connected to the telephone system, then the telephone
is useless. The more people have telephones, the more useful is the telephone.
The second example is police protection. There are many policemen in one city. These
people are here to protect all citizens. One person cannot exclusively possess the entire
police protection service. Some may argue that if a policeman is protecting someone else,
he or she is being taken away from others. But, there isn’t only one police officer. There are
many more who can give police protection.
Hans: An additional argument which you were perhaps thinking of here is that safe streets do not only benefit one
but everybody. However your example is again not the clearest manifestation of the principle involved. After all,
police protection has been privatized. In the United States one can find fenced-in exclusive residential communities
which have their own police. A better example would be health: in order to protect yourself from contagious
diseases you must protect everyone from contagious diseases.
Message [3] referenced by [16]. Next Message by Frosty is [76].
[14] Scarlett: There are quite a few things which can be useful without being in the exclusive
possession of the user. Intuitively, I think of anything which is used by a community of
people. For example, a park which is used by many people, a library where the community
has access to all the books and facilities. When shared by a group of people, rather than
40 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
being an exclusive possession of one or a few people, things are significantly more useful to
a group as a whole.
Hans: Even to the individual. Think of telephones. Libraries have similar effects: if others read the same books
you are reading, they may develop the art or the theory in those books further, which benefits also you.
I never thought of that, but it is true that in order to get the full benefit of some things, it
is necessary to share them with other people.
Next Message by Scarlett is [164].
[16] Dubbel: This I think may be seen in public utilities or properties, such as roads,
parks, and recreaction areas. The user of these things are not in the possesion of the user.
Hans: Grammar and spelling in the prededing and following sentence! Someone who writes like this invites low
grades.
An individual use this things to increase ones utulity. This may be seen as travel, transportation
to increase utility or create way to create commodities. A use value is involved
from these things. Another item could be the use of credit cards or credit. Money is not
directly in their hand however, credit will access the the transaction. Today there doesn’t
seem to be to many limits of what own can exchange with credit. This may be seen a use
value and the value of exchange. This may vary among individuals on the value of ones
credit allowance. From this use, they may increase their utility at that or commodities.
Hans: Frosty wrote something very similar in [3]. I think you can learn from this too.
I appreciate your reply to Frosty plus his/her answer. It did help!
Next Message by Dubbel is [17].
[22] Ann: The best example of a good that is not in direct possesion of the user but is
obtainable for the user is a public good. The United States military is a good example. On a
smaller scale a street light is another good example.
Hans: Good.
Next Message by Ann is [87].
[28] Braydon: Yes, any product of the public utilities industry, whether it be power, water
or gas. These are very useful to us, but we do not own the industry. It is not in our exclusive
posession.
Hans: Do you need to own General Motors to drive a car? Power, water and gas must be in your exclusive
possession. The kilowatt hour which you are using cannot be used by others.
Entertainment is also an industry we do not owm, but we find it very useful. We rent the
rights, let’s say, on a Friday night when we go to the movies and to a lot of us it is a weekly
ritual and of great value.
Hans: But for this rental fee you have exclusive possession of a chair in the auditorium.
Human beings are not in our exclusive possession, but we find them very useful to us.
Actually, a necessary part of a happy existence for most of us. My baby son is of great value
to me and someday he will not be mine.
Hans: He is not your property even now, he is a different human being!
Next Message by Braydon is [29].
[35] Ghant: Yes, there are many things which are extremely valuable, even when not
owned exclusively by the user. The most basic is air, no one can own it, but it is absolutely
necessary to survival, just as food is. Another example would be property held in common
by a community, such as our national parks. Information is a good example of something

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 41
that gains value when shared with others, especially in areas of research such as the medical
or similar fields.
Hans: Ok. But don’t call them valuable. For Marx, “value” has a very specific meaning.
Next Message by Ghant is [118].
[62] Marlin: An example is the e-mail I am using right now. It is just as useful to myself
as it is to someone who can sit at home on their own computer. Many things can be useful
to people who do not own them directly.
Hans: What do you mean by not owning the e-mail directly? There are two components involved. On the one
hand the software: Once the software is produced, many users can use it without crowding each other. This is very
different from food or living space etc. The computers which you are using and the hardware necessary to transport
the e-mail across campus or across the world have also become so efficient that they can accommodate many users
at a modest cost.
I am not exactly sure what you are expecting for answers as far as length and content. If
you have suggestions please send me a message.
Hans: I’ll have to see more of your questions before I can say something in this respect.
(datestring)Tue, 24 Jan 1995 15:35:27 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) By owning directly, I am
merely using e-mail as an example. I believe that things can be useful to someone without
being in the exclusive possession of the user. For another example the UTA bus system.
None of us has exclusive possession of it. We may pay for it through taxes and ride fares but
no one can just hop on a bus and drive it to their own personal destination. As far as my use
of e-mail for an example, in the computer lab at the university I may pay for its use through
tuition, but I do not have exclusive ownership rights of either the software or the terminals.
Any material items may be like this and need not be related to food or other necessities for
survival.
Hans: Good. I agree.
Next Message by Marlin is [254].
[66] Translat: There are many objects that are useful. Electricity used for lighting freeways
which benefit almost everyone and can be considered a “free-rider” item. Trees, plants
that recycle carbon monoxide also do not need to be in the immediate possession of a user
and yet benefit the public.
Hans: Ok.
Next Message by Translat is [67].
[181] Vida: Marx believed that one can enjoy utility of a certain good only through
possession of the thing that is giving them utility. However, there are things that can be
useful and do offer utility with out being in the exclusive possession of the user. For example,
the computer that I am typing this response on is not in the possession of myself , but is in
the possession of the University of Utah or the State of Utah. Clearly I am enjoying a
certain amount of utility because I am able to complete my assignment without purchasing
a computer of my own. It does serve as a benefit to me and I am not in exclusive possession.
I will get up and leave and a new user will reap the benefit from using the same computer.
Hans: I.e. you have been in exclusive possession of this terminal. And when you try to access the computer from
home through the computer center’s call-in lines then you will experience what congestion really means.
Other examples are roads, libraries, pubic restrooms, parks, nature, etc. All can have a
number of different users and any given time and all can offer utility to each individual user,
users mind you that are not in exclusive possession.
42 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
Next Message by Vida is [182].
[234] Marinda: Many things are useful without exclusive possession, such as “common
goods” (as I was taught in my study of collective action problems.) Public parks, clean air
to breathe, freeways, anything shareable can be useful without exclusive possession (i.e.,
private property claims.) However, some things’ usefulness is diminished by sharing. For
instance, a park is only partly shareable. When it gets too crowded, it loses its appeal and
utility as an open space. Unrestricted grazing on a common pasture creates a similar situation
- it is more useful to one if no-one else uses it, it is still useful if several use it, but if too
many use it, the productivity of the land decreases, and the produce that remains is divided
among all the users.
Hans: Very good review.
Next Message by Marinda is [245].
[371] Alex: There are things that can be useful without being in the exclusive possession
of the user. Such things might be Public goods. Examples of these are things like roads,
police cars, busses, military equipment such as tanks and airplanes (those tanks and airplanes
protect everybody equally, we all share the benefits, without having exclusive ownership).
Hans: As you are writing this, the uninitiated reader may think public goods are goods owned by the state. The
modern definition of a public good is a good that must be supplied in the same amount to all affected consumers.
(Varian, Intermediate Microeconomics, 1st ed., 1987, p. 564 – he has a whole chapter about public goods). Silberberg,
The Structure of Economics, 1978, p. 486, uses the concept of “congestion.”
Message [371] referenced by [373] and [390]. Next Message by Alex is [387].
[372] Eagle: Yes. Roads are very useful to anybody who drives or rides in a motorized
vehicle, but the government owns the roads. The drivers can only use them and have to
pay taxes to be able to use them. There are many things that belong to the government,
churches, etc., that are very useful to people, but but these objects are not in the person’s
exclusive possession.
Hans: There are many things which are provided to us for no charge, like roads. In our economy centered on the
automobile, the government is interested in everybody being able to drive to work and to the shopping centers,
this is why roads are provided to us relatively abundantly. But that one does not need “possession” (as opposed to
ownership) of roads is an illusion. Your car does contribute to the congestion of the road. Every road has only a
limited capacity. If you look at the context of Question 22 in the Notes, you will see that I asked: are there use
values which by their very nature cannot be congested or are very hard to congest.
Next Message by Eagle is [374].
[373] Sprewell: Once again, public goods are good examples to answer this question.
Each of the examples used in answer to question 17, do not belong exclusively to a single
user. They are useful to many without being in their sole possession.
Hans: Yes, your answer to 17 [390]. is really an answer to the present question. Also see [371].
Message [373] referenced by [390]. Next Message by Sprewell is [390].
Question 24 is 32 in 1995ut, 39 in 2001fa, 40 in 2002fa, 46 in 2004fa, 47 in 2005fa, 52
in 2008fa, 54 in 2009fa, 55 in 2010fa, 60 in 2011fa, and 58 in 2012fa:
Question 24 Why does Marx say that use values are the “material carriers” of exchange
value?
[17] Dubbel: Use values are either being used or consumed and they also represent commodities,
as “content of wealth”.
Hans: Don’t understand what you mean here. Please respond back with a clarification.

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 43
To clarify, a use value must be in the process of being used or consumed to be seen as
having a material content of wealth.
Hans: I get it now. You are thinking that exchange value is something subjective, it is a person’s individual
willingness to exchange. And this depends on the person’s perception of the use value of the thing. Exchange value
for Marx is not a personal propensity, but something attributed to the commodity by the market. Now back to your
original answer:
Through this the use value of the commodity carries with it a value or worth that is
understood or equally valued by others. This is the actual value in which the commodities
may be exchanged.
Hans: Now you are saying that value derives from use value. This is utility theory, not Marx. Are you aware of the
mental gymnastics utility is making to get to the result that the use values are valued “equally” by everyone? This
is a question not only to you, but to the whole class.
Marx refers to the exchange value as a quantitative relation.
Hans: Marx says at the beginning of R126:2: Exchange value appears at first as a quantitative relation (my emphasis).
He argues throughout that exchange value is much more than a quantitative relation.
This being the use value of one particular item in exchange for the use value of another
item. Each item carries a quantitative value or worth for an type of exchange. This material
worth is carried by commodities which may carry varied quantitative value.
Hans: Your use of the word “carry” is not clear enough to answer Question 24.
In reference to carry: Each commodity holds a certian worth. I believe that Marxs refers
to the fact that this value is inherent to the commodities. If the use value is gone then its
exhcange value is lost. Commodities hold or represent its use values, and in accordances
holds an exchange values.
Hans: Grammar! It is a matter of simple courtesy to go over your message at least once and edit it before sending
it out.
However, refering to the example you gave in the packet of the bread growing on trees.
The bread is freely available to all. So from this, one can say that the labour or type of
labour involved to acquire somethig is added to the use value and exchange value held by
the commodity.
Hans: The argument was: If bread grows on wild trees, then it still has the same use value, but no longer the same
exchange value. Therefore the exchange value does not come from the use value.
Message [17] referenced by [29]. Next Message by Dubbel is [262].
[53] Stxian: The reason why Marx say that use values are the “material carriers” of
exchange value is because that use values represented a paticular commodity’s usefulness,
in another word, human’s desire to acquire such commodity and human’s motive or objective
behind the desire and needs. In general, use values are closely associated with a commodity’s
exchange value. Because through people’s need and want of that commodity and some other
commodity, people usually trade with each other in ancient societies. Both sides wanted to
trade something that are usefulness, that is both sides wanted a commodity with a use value
and is exactly what he needs. This means that people trade X good a to Y good b, so, X=Y,
this function is the exchange value of both good a and good b. This is what Marx meant by
use value as a material carrier to exchange value. A commodity has to have a use value first,
then it can be traded or exchanged, and in terms, use value itself serves as a material carrier.
Hans: You are saying that the use value is the source of the exchange value, that the exchange value comes from
the use value, because the utility of something affects how much people want it and therefore arewillingto pay for
44 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
it. Marx says that the exchange value is determined by forces “behind the back” of the individuals. The use value
has a much more subordinate function in it, that of a “carrier”.
Next Message by Stxian is [168].
[60] Makarios: Marx says this because exchange values are values placed on products by
society, and the value that society places on things, or the value of each individual product, is
determined by the use values of each product. More simply put, the usefulness of any given
product is a determinant of how valuable society determines a product to be. If a product is
useless, then its exchange value is likely to be very low.
Hans: This is subjective value theory but not Marx. Being a “carrier” of something is a much weaker statement
than what you just described. It is like the canvas on which the painting is pained. It does not determine the painting.
Message [60] referenced by [293]. Next Message by Makarios is [251].
[61] Pegasus: Marx says that use value is the “material carrier” of exchange value because
if a commodity does not have use value it will not have exchange value either.
Hans: This is the end of your answer. The things you are writing from now on are quotes from my Annotations,
but it is not apparent how they relate to the question asked.
The usefulness of a commodity gives it its use value. Use value can only be realized
in consumption. The exchange value of a good consists in exchanging one use value for
another. A commodity is produced for sale or exchange since the worker no longer has a
direct link with the commodity that he or she is producing.
Next Message by Pegasus is [175].
Question 25 is 35 in 1996sp, 33 in 1996ut, 36 in 1997sp, 34 in 1998WI, 38 in 1999SP, 41
in 2004fa, 42 in 2005fa, 48 in 2007SP, 47 in 2008fa, 49 in 2009fa, 50 in 2010fa, 55 in
2011fa, and 54 in 2012fa:
Question 25 What is the exchange value of a commodity? (Give its definition, not an analysis
where it comes from).
[4] Civic: Exchange value is the quantitative relationship or proportion in which values
are exchanged for one another. Marx feels that this is the practical side of this argument,
and this is the 1st notion of exchange value. But exchange value also represents a social
aspect that the properties can demand quantitative value due to this social desireability in the
marketplace.
Hans: The quantitative relations in which values can be exchanged for one another are already something social.
What you mean by “social aspect” is apparently a source for this exchangeability located deeper in society, i.e.,
what Marx calles value as opposed to exchange value. But unlike Marx, you see this value coming from the “social
desirability” of the product.
The capitalist society is only concerned with what values are socially desirable and not
necessarily the usefulness or use value of the commodity.
Hans: You apparently interpret Marx’s dichotomy between use value and exchange value as one between individual
and social desirability. This is not what Marx has in mind.
Additionally, Marx then states that the value or “proportion is constantly changing with
time and place”. This then shows that the exchange value is not intrinsically linked with the
commodity, but rather a function of supply and demand in the marketplace. The observation
to be made here is that exchange value is not linked directly with the commodity, but rather
it is what the commodity can demand in the marketplace. Therefore the use value of the

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 45
product is not looked at as part of the exchange value, only what the commodity can demand
at the market. I think this is Marx’s commentary as a pitfall of the capitalist society.
Hans: You have read the Annotations, but there are still some basic misunderstandings. Please try this Question
again, read it carefully. The answer can be given in one or two sentences.
(datestring)Wed, 11 Jan 1995 09:30:25 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) This is a reply to answer
question 25 again. My understanding of exchange value is that it is the social properties of
the commodity that are exchanged against other use values in a quantitative fashion. In other
words the exchange value of my car is 6,000 dollars while the use value is transportation.
Thus, exchange value is the exchangability of the commodity in the marketplace. Use value
is the natural uses of the commodity and exchange value is an expression of these social
properties to command quantitative value in the marketplace.
Hans: Yes, exchange value is the exchangeability of the commodity in the marketplace. This is the definition of
exchange value asked for in Question 25. The Question asked to give a definition, not an analysis. Your answer
gives also an analysis, namely, that this eschangeability is an expression of the social desirability of the good.
Marx’s analysis is different.
Next Message by Civic is [6].
[11] Darci: Exchange value is the use-value of a commodity. The use-value is determined
by society or individual based on the usefulness (properties) of the commodity. To illustrate
this point, one could look at sticky note paper. A group of chemists were working on a
glue product. A product was made which stuck but not permanently. The glue product was
considered a failure until someone saw the value in using it to stick paper to something that
could be removed easily and without damaging the goods to which it was stuck. This made
the glue useful and now of value.
Hans: Something that is utterly useless cannot be sold and therefore cannot be of value. This is why Marx calls
the use value the “carrier” of value. But in Marx’s theory, the magnitude of value is not determined by the use value
but by the amount of labor incorporated in the commodity.
And you were trying to give an analysis, not the definition. Try this one again too.
(datestring)Tue, 17 Jan 1995 17:29:20 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) REVISION (apparently
a line was missing; presumably it said: Exchange value is the quantity) of commodity B
which can be traded for quantity of commodity A which rate has been socially determined
by socially accepted use value.
Hans: Not by socially accepted use value but by labor time.
Next Message by Darci is [72].
[106] Golfer: Karl Marx has defined commodity as the basic building foundation for a
capitalist economy. There are two aspects of every commodity; use-value and exchange
value. Use-value is the natural properties and uses of a commodity, the exchange value is
the social properities of a commodity,
Hans: Exchange value is a social property, but I wanted you to be more specific about that.
in a capitalist society Karl Marx has explained that the only exchange value is of worth,
because the commodities’ social properities can control the quantity of value on the market.
This shows the voluntarity of the capitalist society. Only the commodities with benefical
properties to the society can be accepted in a society with limited resources and unlimited
wants.
Hans: This is certainly not how Marx views it. Whether or not you agree with Marx, it is your responsibility in
this class to try to understand what he was saying.
Next Message by Golfer is [108].
46 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
[114] Allison: The exchange value is a socially determined property that assesses the
proportion in which use values of one type of commodity are exchanged for the use values
of another. It is the amount someone must pay to acquire a commodity that he or she wants
and the amount that someone can get for a commodity. It is interesting to note that this is in
most cases a subjective issue, as the tastes and preferences of individuals varies with each
person.
Hans: The subjective element enters when an individual decides whether he or she buys the stuff at the price at
which it is offered. But the price itself is not determined individually.
Next Message by Allison is [115].
[241] Deadhead: The exchange value of a commodity is the amount commodity you can
expect in exchange for the commodity you possess. The “exchange value” so very similar
to the term “price.” Example, in exchange for 60 cents you will receive 1 pepsi from the
vending machine and likewise a Snickers also costs 60 cents. Therefore, since the “price”
of both is equal you could say the exchange value of one can of pepsi is one Snickers bar or
vice versa.
Hans: The parallel between exchange value and price is very right.
Next Message by Deadhead is [242].
[249] Marinda: The exchange value of a commodity is how much of some other commodity
can be exchanged for a given quantity of the first. Any commodity can be exchanged
for any other commodity, if the proportion of the quantities is appropriate, (as set by the
market or some other mechanism.) Therefore, the exchange value of any one commodity
can be expressed in terms of any other commodity. (Traditional African barter markets often
had exchange rates (prices?) set by “custom” such as four goats=two bags of cowrie
shells=one steer. People were expected to accept either of these or some other equivalent
in settlement of debts. Since markets were held at least weekly and exchange rates were
stable, these things could easily be exchanged again for something else, so anything subject
to standardized exchange rates could serve as “money.” Some say that cowries were money,
because they had little use-value. Yes, they were used for decoration, but some people kept
bags and bags of them stored up to pay bride-prices, buy cows and give obligatory gifts or
bribes to join secret societies and get favors from the more powerful.)
Hans: Would be interesting to see how this triple general equivalent fits into Marx’s scheme of things as laid out
in Section 3.
Next Message by Marinda is [250].
[283] Ledzep: The exchange value of a given commodity is the quantitative relation or
proportion, in which use-values of one kind are exchanged for use-values of another kind.
This answer is straight from the text of Capital. Is it possible to miss this question?
Hans: Yes, it is. I usually do not want people to quote or paraphrase the text back to me, but to say in in their own
words. This way it becomes much clearer if the participant has understood the question. Thinking that “value” is
a subjective attitude, I often received the answer that the exchange value is a person’s willingness to eschange a
product. You got this right with the above quote which unambiguously identifies exchange value as a social given.
But you probably missed the fact that the above is only the first manifestation of the exchange value. The fact that
you will be able to receive a commodity, no questions asked, as long as you pay the required amount of money
is also an aspect of the exchange value in our society. The whole Section 3 of Chapter One talks about the forms
of exchange value. Maybe one can say the exchange value of a commodity is the place of the commodity in the
market relations between all commodities.
Next Message by Ledzep is [285].

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 47
[284] Tsunami: The exchange value of a commodity is the relationship of that commodity
to all other commodities. It is something inherent to that commodity because people
performing the exchange do so posteriori to the assigning of the exchange values; that is to
say, the exchange values have already been defined socially and individual exchangers must
participate within those definitions.
Hans: Good. You said a little bit about where it comes from, but what you said is right.
Message [284] referenced by [2008fa:407] and [2008fa:433]. Next Message by Tsunami is [355].
Question 26 is 37 in 1996sp, 35 in 1996ut, 32 in 1997ut, 39 in 1999SP, 42 in 2001fa, 45
in 2003fa, 49 in 2004fa, 57 in 2007SP, 57 in 2008fa, 60 in 2010fa, 65 in 2011fa, and 63
in 2012fa:
Question 26 How can one come to the conclusion that exchange value is not something
inherent in the commodity?
[6] Civic: Exchange value is not intrinsically linked to the commodity because it fluctuates
according to the circumstances of the exchange.
Hans: Yes, this is basically the answer to the question.
The best illustrative example of this is trying to value property. Someone may ask what
the property is worth and the exchange value response would be “Whatever you can get for
it”. Valuing commodities is therefore relative and changes constantly.
Hans: Your formulation in this passage is a little confusing. Please send me a short note simply re-formulating this
passage?
(datestring)Wed, 11 Jan 1995 09:40:00 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) I was trying to give an
illustrative example of how exchange value was not intrinsically linked to the commodity.
The quote from Butler says “For what is worth in anything but so much money as ‘twill
bring’.” My example is how difficult it is to determine the value of real estate. Someone
may want to know what the value of the land is and a common response is that it is worth
whatever it can command on the market. I felt that this is an illustrative example of what
Marx calls exchange value and how it is not directly linked to the commodity because it
changes and fluctuates with time and place.
Hans: The saying: “it is worth whatever it can command on the market” not only implies variability, but, first and
foremost, it indicates that there is no “value” behind the “exchange value” of this particular product, i.e., that the
last sentence of 127:1 in Capital is wrong, where Marx says:
and secondly, exchange value itself cannot be anything other than the the mere mode of expression,
“form of appearance,” of some content distinguishable from it.
The thing which I found confusing is that you derived variability from the absence of an economic principle determining
the exchange value (which you seem to derive from the difficulty of valuing real estate) while Marx went
the other way around: he started with the empirical variability of exchange values and concluded from this that it
seems as if exchange value was something “accidental and purely relative”.
Thus accounting practices in the United States value assets based on historical costs because
it is the last exchange with the commodity.
Hans: But why should the last exchange be more relevant than any other? In my mind, modern addcounting
practices are a slap in the face of modern subjective value theory: the accountants certainly do as if value were not
relative but as if value were very much connected with the commodities themselves.
I think that the toughest question in this context is what something is “WORTH”. Capitalist
economies say that a car is worth 10,000 dollars. But the use value of the car may
48 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
be something entirely different than what it is “worth”. This exchange value is extremely
variable for different people and circumstances. For example, food may take on different
values depending on if the person is starving or not. The last time I went shopping at the
grocery store I was extremely hungry and I was not price sensitive due to my desire to satisfy
immediate needs. Thus the exchange value for me fluctuated depending on external
circumstances. I was more willing to pay higher prices at that time and place. I think that
Marx is pointing out an over emphasis of capital societies to focus on the exchange value of
commodities. This is not directly linked to the properties of the commodity itself but rather
a function of the workings of the marketplace and external circumstances. If exchange value
was directly linked to the commodity then pricing and valuation of commodities would be
stable and constant. There would not be questions referring to what something was worth
quantitatively, but rather the worth of all commodities would be known and based upon what
the commodity is comprised of, (the use value).
Next Message by Civic is [8].
[29] Braydon: A coat in the winter time to a homeless person will be of much greater
value than the coat would be in 95 degree weather. He would want to trade much more
of what he has to get the coat in January. It is still the same coat, but the circumstance is
different. He also could be in the Bahamas in January and have no need of the coat, thus
proving Marx’s statement “this proportion is constantly changing with time and place.”
Hans: You are identifying exchange-value of a thing with a person’s willingness to exchange this thing, and this
with the use-value of this thing to this person. Others have made this mistake too, see [17] and [18]. The exchangevalue
of a thing is the socially accepted exchange relation of the thing, think of it as its price. There is little need
for coats in the Bahamas, therefore you will not find many coats in the stores there, and those which you do find
are probably not very cheap.
Next Message by Braydon is [149].
[31] Sinbad: If the exchange value is constantly changing with time and place it seems as
if exchange value is not intrinsic to the commodity. It can be concluded that if the exchangeproportion
changes then the exchange value doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with the
commodity itself but instead it is dependent on the circumstances of the exchange.
Hans: Ok. But don’t just cite or paraphrase my notes, use your own words.
Next Message by Sinbad is [86].
[115] Allison: I think that the best way that one can come to the conclusion that exchange
value is not something inherent in the commodity is to pay close attention to, as
mentioned in the notations, the circumstances of the exchange. If in fact the exchange value
of a commodity is socially determined then different societies will assess different levels of
exchange value to similar commodities. An example might be that the exchange values of
compact discs in Guatemala would be much different from the exchange value of the same
commodity here in the United States. The circumstances of the exchanges could be seen as
in Guatemala there are not nearly as many compact disc players as there are in the United
States, causing a different exchange value. The C.D. does not have any intrisic value but
rather has a different value depending on the circumstances in which it is found.
Hans: If the good has one price in the United States and one other price in Gutatemala, this is intrinsic enough.
Next Message by Allison is [116].
[242] Deadhead: If a product is raw, such as gold or plutonium, or very difficult or
expensive to produce, its exchange value in relation to other products value may be very high.
If new sources of the raw material or technological advances allow for drastic increases, in

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 49
the production of this once “expensive” product, its value in exchange in proportion towards
other products will decrease. Likewise, if an easily accessible product becomes scarce as in
the case of natural resources that are being exhausted, their exchange value in proportion to
other goods will increase. Exchange value for a particular product is somewhat dependent
on the market for other goods around it.
Hans: Ok.
Next Message by Deadhead is [243].
[285] Ledzep: Since the exchange value of any given commodity can vary depending on
the circumstance in which the commodity is exchanged, the exchange value is not inherent.
If the exchange value were inherent, the exchange value must be mutually exclusive with its
environment and circumstance.
Hans: Right.
Next Message by Ledzep is [286].
Question 28 is 37 in 1996ut, 34 in 1997ut, 54 in 2004fa, 62 in 2007SP, 63 in 2008fa, 66
in 2010fa, 76 in 2011fa, and 75 in 2012fa:
Question 28 Why does Marx’s inquiry sometimes reach an impasse which can only be resolved
by “considering the matter more closely”?
[250] Marinda: Marx’ argument leads us intentionally into a logical impasse as a rhetorical
technique, to prepare us for his insight which is intended to resolve the impasse in a new
way. In fact, the impasse itself is an insight that he offers - the fact that there is a contradiction
to be explained is something that we might not have thought about before, because
we thought we already understood commodities. Therefore, he must show us that there is a
puzzle, before we can be interested in or understand his solution to the puzzle. It is a teaching
method. Is it part of the “dialectical method” of seeking knowledge? or is my phrase a
correct way to use this term?
Hans: In your answer you are tacitly admitting that there are contradictions in the world – but these contradictions
can be resolved if one switches to a deeper layer of reality. I.e., Marx does not make up these impasses as a
pedagogical device.
Next Message by Marinda is [255].
Question 31 is 40 in 1996ut, 38 in 1997ut, 55 in 2002fa, 57 in 2003fa, 62 in 2005fa, 73
in 2007SP, 73 in 2007fa, 74 in 2008fa, 77 in 2010fa, and 90 in 2011fa:
Question 31 Marx argues that commodities are exchangeable only because they have some
common substance. Bailey, by contrast, compares the exchange value of commodities with
the distance between points, which is not intrinsic to the points but is purely relative: “As
we cannot speak of the distance of any object without implying some other object, between
which and the former this relation exists, so we cannot speak of the value of a commodity
but in reference to another commodity compared with it. A thing cannot be valuable in itself
without reference to another thing” [mecw32]329, fn. Comment.
[251] Makarios: A thing can be valuable in itself, but only in terms of use value. As
for exchange value, in a society with many different goods to choose from, a medium of
exchange, which is a good in and of itself, must be determined so that different goods can
be exchanged according to the value that society has placed on each good. This is easily
explained by the marginal rate of substitution. How much of one good would one be willing
50 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
to give up to obtain another good. The actual exchange value itself is determined by this
relative value to society as a whole. This is one of the reasons for money. A good that each
product has a certain quantity of this good that equals a certain quantity of the product. I
hope that all makes sense.
Hans: Well, the next-to-last sentence does not make sense, but otherwise your writing is quite clear. Most of the
study questions are supposed to be answered in the framework of Marx’s theory. You seem to have a good command
of neoclassical theory, therefore the encounter with a completely different paradigm should be interesting.
Next Message by Makarios is [389].
Question 38 is 47 in 1995ut, 49 in 1996sp, 47 in 1996ut, 46 in 1997ut, 58 in 1999SP, 60
in 2001fa, 73 in 2004fa, 72 in 2005fa, 85 in 2007SP, 85 in 2007fa, 86 in 2008fa, 93 in
2010fa, 110 in 2011fa, and 108 in 2012fa:
Question 38 What is value (according to Marx)?
[32] Ranger: According to Marx, labour is the substance of value. Also, a commodity
will not contain value if that commodity does not serve as an object of utility. Labour, in a
useless commodity is worthless and does not create value. The key is that a commodity’s
value depends on the amount of labour “socially necessary for its production”.
Hans: What you are calling here “the key” is an elaboration of how the quantity of value is determined. Marx
himself always downplays the quantitative side of it. He says repeatedly that the mainstream economists of his time
were so concerned about the quantity of value that they forgot to look at the quality of value-creating labor. This is
also an aspect which is completely missing in your response.
It is also worth mentioning that a thing can have use-value without being a value. This
occurs when the thing’s utility is not determined through labour, examples include; air, unplanted
forests, and virgin soil. These examples can be useful but are not commodities.
Hans: The utility of something is never determined through labor. Marx writes about the use value in 126:1 “This
characteristic of a commodity is independent of the amount of labor required to appropriate its useful qualities.”
But I guess this was just an unfortunate formulation of yours. You meant to say: “this occurs when the thing has
utility without containing labor.”
To be a commodity the thing must not only contain use-values but social use-values.
Marx states, “nothing can be a value without being an object of utility.”
Hans: Ok.
Next Message by Ranger is [121].
[67] Translat: Marx’s theory of value has both quantitative and qualitative aspects. Under
a capitalist society, labor is performed by the private sector. Each area produces a different
aspect
Hans: Formulation! Also the rest of the sentence!
and the resulting market balance is by chance. The value law consists of three (3) functions:
1. Value acts as a base for fluctuating prices for resources; 2. Determines the quantity
of resources expended; 3. Maintains structure for economic growth by regulating rates of
profit and directing investment to those areas of production that obtain profit above average
and away from those below average.
Hans: This functionalist explanation is alien to Marx. You act as if the law of value had been instituted for certain
purposes. Marx stresses that this law is arising blindly and spontaneously.
Marx used the concept “abstract social labour” which is used to determine value. He used
not just the necessary labor, but the surplus labor as a measure rod. The commodity itself

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 51
does not completely represent the value, but the labor is part of the commodity. The example
of the shoes used in the book clarifies the issue. The value of the shoes comes not just from
the material used nor from the market value, but from a combination of these as well as the
labor expended.
Hans: There is quite a bit of confusion about what Marx means.
However, in the final analysis, if something has no utility, it has no value even if the
construction required labor. Without being useful to some extent the labor is without value.
Hans: There is a difference between talking about the labor theory of value and talking about value. According to
Marx, value is something real. What is it (and how can it be real)?
(datestring)Wed, 25 Jan 1995 08:32:13 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) Apparently you didn’t
receive all of the answer, I am sending it again. However, I agree that
Hans: ehrbar¿ This functionalist explanation is alien to Marx. You act as ehrbar¿ if the law of value had been
instituted for certain ehrbar¿ purposes. Marx is stresses that this law is arising blindly ehrbar¿ and spontaneously.
My answer was formulated using the Introduction pages 41-43 as a basis for understanding.
Hans: ehrbar¿ There is quite a bit of confusion about what Marx means. ehrbar¿ There is a difference between
talking about the labor theory ehrbar¿ of value and talking about value. According to Marx, value ehrbar¿ is
something real. What is it (and how can it be real)?
R131:1/4 “(Now we know the substance of value. It is labour...)” Labor is the tangible
property of value. It is real, not imaginary. Air is useful, but is not a commodity.
Hans: This is the correct answer to the original question. I was overly critical in my remarks, and the question
how value can be real is a difficult one. Yes, labor is something real. But the past labor expended on a product, can
it still have an effect? (Here I am playing the devil’s advocate; I would argue yes, it can.)
(datestring)Fri, 27 Jan 1995 14:32:19 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) I agree, past labor has
effect on value. What ever level, from the beginning to the end, the labor occurs on, the
amount of labor expended is part of the end product.
Hans: Good observation: in the labor theory of value (LTV), the labor formerly expended is added to the present
labor to give the value of the product. Nevertheless, I see something mysterious in here. The LTV says that the
exchange proportions between coat and linen are governed by the labor in the coat and the labor in the linen. But
at the time of the exchange, this labor lies in the past. How can it have an effect today? This was my question.
(datestring)Wed, 8 Feb 1995 08:02:24 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) I believe that it depends
on whether your looking at the arguement from an economic or sociological view. If it is
from economic, the exchange value or market value includes the costs of manufacture as
a whole. This would include costs of labor, materials, overhead, etc. From a sociological
view, the labor is almost a tangible item, but not quite. Labor cannot be discounted no matter
at which stage of the production it takes place. It is still manual labor and as such has unit
value which are included in the exchange porportions. If we base the units of exchange on
human labor an example of the result would be: 10 hours to make 2 yrds. of linen=10 hours
to make 1 coat The exchange value now rests in the units of labor, not the market value of
the coat.
Hans: Yes, this is an important distinction. What you call ‘sociological’ is what Marx calls ‘capital in general’, it
is the point of view of society as a whole. This is the subject of Marx’s book ‘Capital’. What you call ‘economic’
is in Marx’s terminology the ‘sphere of competition,’ the interactions of the agents on the ‘surface’. Marx intended
to write a separate book about competition but never had time. When we do Chapter Twelve we will get some
glimpses of what this distinction entails. It is basically the distinction between social {1} and social {2} .
52 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
You have made an important step towards answering my question: how can past labor still have an effect, which
is an important but also difficult question.
Message [67] referenced by [517]. Next Message by Translat is [71].
Question 39 is 48 in 1996ut, 47 in 1997ut, 59 in 1999SP, 65 in 2003fa, 74 in 2004fa, 73
in 2005fa, 86 in 2007SP, 86 in 2007fa, 87 in 2008fa, 90 in 2009fa, and 109 in 2012fa:
Question 39 Someone says: use value is the quality of the commodity, and exchange value
is its quantity. Right or wrong?
[7] Ranger: This is wrong! If two commodities are equal in quantity they will have the
same use value but not the same exchange value. Quality of a commodity is irrelevant with
respect to its use value. For example, two computers, an IBM and an Apple have the same
use value, whether one is more accepted and used than the other.
Hans: Where did you get this notion of use value from? The kind of software a computer can run and how widely
used it is are very important aspects of the use value of a computer.
Also your notion of quality is not the one Marx is using. Apparently, if you talk about the quality of something,
you mean the question whether it is well-made (high quality) or not. For Marx, all the properties of a thing constitute
its quality.
Exchange value deals with the quality of a commodity.
Hans: “Deals with”: I think you mean “depends on”.
The quality of a commodity can only be determined by the quality and amount of labor
put into that commodity. An example is the higher exchange value of Compaq computers
as compared to Packard Bell computers. The reason is that the quality and quantity of labor
put into Compaq computers is superior to that of Packard Bell’s. Subsequently, Compaq
computers have a higher perceived exchange value.
Hans: Why do you call the exchange value “perceived”? Sorry to be so picky, but there are apparently still some
misunderstandings which you have to work on.
The word “perceived” was inserted without regard to what the word actually meant. Although
I have not directly witnessed the labor expended on either Compaq or Packard Bell
computers, I have been told by associates that Compaq expends a greater amount of labor on
their commodities. I believe then that Compaq computers constitute higher quality because
of the labor expended on the commodity.
Hans: OK, People have such information only second-hand, and it may not be very reliable. But people do not
give things exchange value because of how they perceive their qualities. The exchange values of things are the
exchange proportions determined by the market. This is one of the misunderstandings I meant.
Another misunderstanding is how you use the word “quality.” For you (and many others in my classes) the
quality of a thing is how well the thing is built, how durable it is. For Marx and Hegel, the quality of a thing is all
its properties.
However, Marx states that, according to Barbon, “One sort of wares are as good as another,
if the value be equal. There is no difference or distinction in things of equal value...”
According to this statement one Compaq computer is equal to one Packard Bell computer.
Hans: Oops, there is yet another misunderstanding. “value” in this Barbon quote is really exchange value. This
should have become clear from the context. You do have to work on the text.
Next Message by Ranger is [32].
[108] Golfer: Wrong. Karl Marx explains that the use-value for all the comodities in
the exchange relation is all the same, if they have equel quanities for example, a thousand

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 53
page document has equal value even if one is on history and the other on fiction stories. The
exchange value of a comodity is determined by the quality of the work in the comodity.
Hans: Please read the text more carefully!
Next Message by Golfer is [225].
[374] Eagle: I think this is a correct statement. Use value is the quality of the commodity
and exchange value is the quantity. Marx explains that the use value has some quality which
equals 1, say ‘1 iron’. The exchange value would be ‘x steel’, ‘x’ being the quantity of steel
that would be worth ‘1 iron,’ or ‘1 iron=x steel’.
Hans: The “qualities” of things are their properties, like their physical properties. The number 1 is not a quality, it
is its opposit, it is a pure quantity.
Next Message by Eagle is [375].
Question 40 is 49 in 1995ut, 51 in 1996sp, 49 in 1996ut, 54 in 1998WI, 63 in 2000fa, 63
in 2001fa, 113 in 2011fa, and 111 in 2012fa:
Question 40 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?
[76] Frosty: According to Marx, the magnitude of value of a commodity is determined
by the labor-time contained in the commodity. He writes that the amount of labor socially
necessary for the production of a commodity exclusively determines the magnitude of value
of any commodity. If two commodities contain equal quantities of labor, they have the same
value. Marx also writes that the common factor in the exchange-value of a commodity is its
value, but the exchange-value is the form of appearance of value. The nature of value for
Marx at the present time is independent from the form of appearance.
Hans: There are some subtle dependencies which will be discussed in Section 3 of Chapter One.
Therefore, the magnitude of value of commodity is the quantity of abstract labor necessary
to produce it.
Next Message by Frosty is [77].
[104] Tsunami: The magnitude of value of a commodity, according to Marx, is determined
by the quantity of abstract labor embodied or materialized in it. This abstract labor is
in turn defined by the duration of labor, and by the labor time defined by standard measures
of time. I think Marx was right on the money when he pointed out that value is congealed
labor, what makes labor time valuable is the fact that it is time that could have been spent
by the worker in other ways. The quantity of other commodities against which it can be
exchanged, the exchange relation, is merely an expression of that value of the commodity.
Hans: Very good. This is a complete answer to this question, since you do not simply discard the other alternative
but explain that too.
Question: Marx points out that the product of one hour of labor by English hand-loom
weavers dropped to one-half its former value with the introduction of power looms. My
question here is, what is Marx saying about progress? Is he arguing here ever-so-subtly
that progress inevitably harms the worker because it reduces his or her social labor? Does
Marx talk about progress (ie. technology, more efficient machinery, or capital-intensive
labor, (arguably capital-intensive labor could be seen as progressive as well as regressive
54 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
depending on socio-economic and environmental factors) elsewhere in Capital or does he
address it in another volume?
Hans: Good observation. This is the Quesnay-question [144].
Next Message by Tsunami is [110].
[116] Allison: The quantity of abstract labor necessary to produce a commodity can not be
the sole determinant in its value, primarily because each person could produce something in
a different amount of time. I believe that the amount of time that something takes to produce
can be reflected in the price, a measure of its value, but it does not have to be. Much more of
the magnitude of value, I believe, is determined by the quantity of other commodities against
which it can be exchanged. If I were an artist and spent 100’s of hours working on an abstract
piece of art, that to me had a very large amount of value, I could not simply turn around and
expect someone else to place a large magnitude of value on it simply because I spent a lot of
time on it. The subjective value of the art might be a large amount for me but if I am going
hungry the real value of the work is going to be the quantity of other commodities, such as
food, shelter etc. against which it can be exchanged.
Hans: Pieces of art are not very typical commodities. I guess your advice to the hungry artist would be: “get a
job.”
Next Message by Allison is [117].
[118] Ghant: Marx begins by setting amounts of commodities equal to each other, for
instance: x shoe polish = y silk. Then he defines them as being equal to another thing. He
later identifies that thing as labor, expressed in time. He identities this as the basic measure
of the worth of a commodity. So each commodity can be expressed in terms of another
commodity, but more correctly for Marx, the magnitude of value of each commodity is
expressed in terms of the value of the labor necessary to produce those commodities.
Hans: This is very terse. Let’s go back and see what you wrote:
Marx begins by setting amounts of commodities equal to each other, for instance: x shoe
polish = y silk.
Hans: Marx is not the one who sets these commodities equal. Marx starts with the observation that the market sets
these commodities equal.
Then he defines them as being equal to another thing.
Hans: Well, this is not a definition, although it may seem like one to someone who is not convinced of Marx’s
argument. Marx argues that there must be something equal in those commodities (he calls it value), otherwise they
would not be routinely exchangeable. In other words, money is not simply nothing, congealed utility as neoclassical
economics wants us to believe, it is not something subjective but it represents a real social resource.
He later identifies that thing as labor, expressed in time.
Hans: Careful with your wording. Labor is not “expressed” in time, but measured in time. The labor in the
commodities is “expressed” in the exchangeability of these commodities.
He identifies this as the basic measure of the worth of a commodity.
Hans: Marx has the concept of value. “Value” may be a high-flying word, but Marx does not really like the fact
that our society is dominated by this kind of “value”.
So each commodity can be expressed in terms of another commodity,
Hans: The value of each commodity is expressed in terms of other commodities – not by their values, but by their
use values!
but more correctly for Marx, the magnitude of value of each commodity is expressed in
terms of the value of the labor necessary to produce those commodities.

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 55
Hans: For this part of the sentence you need “determined,” not “expressed.” The magnitude of value is determined
by the socially necessary labor time represented in that commodity. Not by the value of that labor, (this were a
circular definition, because then the question would arise: and what is the value of that labor determined by), but
by that labor itself.
Next Message by Ghant is [119].
[122] Civic: The magnitude of value of a commodity is determined by the quantity of abstract
labor necessary to produce it. It is necessary to keep the different types of value Marx
talks about straight. He first covers use value as the useful characteristics of the commodity.
Next we understand a relationship called exchange value as the quantitative relationship that
commodities command when they are exchanged in the marketplace. And now Marx defines
value as the “abstract human labor objectified or materialized in it” (the commodity).
Marx further summarizes “(Now we know the substance of value. It is labour. We know the
measure of its magnitude. It is labor time.” (R130:1/0). I think the second part of question
40 is referring to exchange value in a quantitative fashion. Substance of value is objectified
by the labor to produce the commodity and its magnitude is measured in labor-time.
Hans: Very good. Clear exposition of something which is often confused in this class.
Next Message by Civic is [124].
[123] Ranger: The magnitude of value of a commodity is determined by the quantity of
abstract labor necessary to produce it. Marx states that the magnitude of the value of an article
is determined by the amount of labour socially required for its production. Commodities
which hold equal quantities of labour, subsequently, have the the same value.
Hans: Ok. But I wanted an explanation, not just a quote. And some argument what this has to do with exchange.
Next Message by Ranger is [125].
[134] Vansmack: This question asks if the value of a commodity is determined by the
quantity of abstract labor or by the quantity of other commodities which can be exchanged
for it. I believe that the quantity of other quantities which are in the same field determines the
value. The quantity of products will lead to competition in the market. This will determine
whether or not the product’s value will be high or low, depending on how it stacks up to
the other quantities in its field. The quantity of other commodities in the field makes the
quantity of labor necessary.
Hans: I am wondering whether your concept of value is: something is of value if it is of high quality compared
with similar other offerings. This is not how Marx uses the concept of value!
Next Message by Vansmack is [136].
[135] Oj: The magnitude of value is determined by the quantity of other commodities
which are exchanged against it.
Hans: I meant: in Marx’s theory.
If a better product is produced it will have greater value.
Hans: So now the magnitude of value is determined by the quality of the product?
If a car company is able to produce better cars with less quantity of workers than a company
with more workers the product will be valued more.
Hans: So the lower the production cost the higher the value? You probably mean: the more competitive the price
the higher the value, i.e., you equate value with demand.
It is the challege from other commodities which keeps the value of a commodity on the
increase.
Hans: This sounds again more like: value comes from quality.
56 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
A company needs the quantities of other commodities in order to produce a quantity a
labor which can produce value.
Hans: Didn’t manage to decipher this one.
Next Message by Oj is [138].
[141] Oregon: “Magnitude of the value of any article is only the amount of socially
necessary for its production.”
Hans: Ok, but why? what does this mean? I wanted you to elaborate, to argue.
(datestring)Thu, 26 Jan 1995 13:45:53 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) Magnitude refers to the
time that elapses (measured in hours) that it takes to produce a commodity. Take four individuals
and have them produce a commodity and then divide by the workers and then you
have the social necessary time that gives the value.
Hans: This is still not what I was looking for. Many people say the magnitude of value is determined by the
quantity of other commdities that can be exhcanged for it. I wanted you to argue against this.
Back to original question:
When looking at the magnitude of labor we have to look at the beginings of labor, and its
value.
Hans: Beginnings of labor? What do you mean?
(datestring)Thu, 26 Jan 1995 13:45:53 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) The beginnings of labor
is the time spent on creating a commodity. Labor does not have value in the respect that it
creates value. The is the mechanism that creates value.
Hans: Stop here. What comes now is a complete turnabout in the way you are using the word “value.” Value for
Marx is not a subjective attitude but a social entity.
Therefore it is valued in the eyes of the owners of production because it makes a commodity
valuable and worth monetary value wich in turn is valued by the owners that gaind
profit from the labor created commodity.
Hans: If you use value the way Marx uses it, then my statement in the original version of this submission remains
correct: Labor itself does not have value.
Now back to your original text:
Value of a commodity is derived from the socially necessary time it takes to create the
commodity.
Hans: And why does then Marx make so much hoopla about his concept of “abtract labor”? What does all this
habve to do with abstract labor?
“Each of these individual labor powers is the same human labor power as any other, so
far as it has the character of the average labor power of society and takes effect as such, and
therefore requires, for producing a commodity, no more than is socially necessary.”
Hans: Now what does all this have to do with exchange proportions?
(datestring)Thu, 26 Jan 1995 13:45:53 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) Answer to the last question.
If someone was only going to be paid a certain amount of money for his work and saw
that hard work was not going to beneficial to him then he would continue with the socially
necessary time to work. If he saw that he could get a great deal of money from his work then
that incentive would make the laborer work harder.
Hans: Are you trying to say here that those who have skills can escape exploitation?
[142].
Message [141] referenced by [142]. Next Message by Oregon is [142].

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 57
[147] Chance: Can anyone enlighten my understanding of Marx’s point! (see third paragraph
regarding lawyer vs. mechanic). Peace— Marx argues that the magnitude of value of
a commodity is determined by the quantity of abstract labor necessary to produce the item.
He states that commodities which have equal quantities of labor hours have the same value.
Therefore, commodities which require more labor hours are greater in value. He uses diamonds
as an example. Diamonds require large amounts of labor time to so call “produce”.
Therefore their magnitude of value is high. If less hours were required or if more commodity
could be produced (ie a rich mine), then the value of the diamond would decrease. Marx
is careful and considers the fact of the lazy worker who takes hours to produce his or her
commodity. It would seem that this worker would be rewarded more because the commodity
would have more value because of the large amount of labor hours. However, he argues
that the value is limited to the socially necessary amount of hours. Therefore, productivity
does have a positive impact upon the value of the commodity. I am not sure I completely
agree with Marx’s theory. However it could be my lack of understanding and application.
However, I see a discrepancy in this theory when services are involved. Let me explain.
Lawyers provide a service, their commodity. In monetary terms, they charge $100 an hour.
A mechanic fixes a car, a service or commodity, yet only charges $40 an hour. How can this
discrepancy exist? Under Marx’s theory, this would imply that whatever the lawyer accomplishes
in 1 hour has an equivalent value to whatever the mechanic accomplishes in 1 hour.
Can this be? What about all of the hours the lawyer spent in school learning how to do what
he or she does? Do these background labor hours affect the magnitude of value?
Hans: This is really Question 61 and not Question 40. And I cannot add much to the answer which Koala (this is
his code name) gave you in [198]
Message [147] referenced by [198] and [201]. Next Message by Chance is [307].
[167] Nena: Marx argues that the magnitude of value of a commodity is determined by
the quantity of abstract labor (labor time) necessary to produce it. Because Marx thought
that labor is the substance of value (only labor can create value), and the quantity of labor
is measured by its duration, the labor time, in terms of weeks, days or hours. And the labor
time socially necessary required is to produce the commodity under the normal condition
of production, and by the average skilled and intensive workers at that time. So, we can
conclude that if one commodity requires much more labor time to produce it than the other
commodity, the value of that commodity is greater than the others’.
Hans: And how did I ever get the idea to ask whether it is determined by the exchange relations? I.e., what does
all this have to do with exchange relations?
Next Message by Nena is [169].
[175] Pegasus: Question 40: The magnitude of value of a commodity is determined by the
amount of labor used in producing it. “Value is congealed labor” (your annotations p.24).
Therefore labor is what gives a commodity its value. Later in the annotations you point to
the fact that goods that require more labor to produce a certain amount of commodity also
will have greater value.
Hans: This question is very simple to answer with reference to the text. But: I’d would like you not just to bring
Marx quotes that he thought so, but also what his reasoning was. And I’d also like to know why the other alternative
which I put to you has to be ruled out, and what this second alternative has to do with the whole issue.
This leads me into the next question:
Hans: Even if your ansers are connected, don’t submit them in the same email message. You can refer to answers
to other questions by yoursef and others using this notation: This leads me into the next question: [230]
58 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
Message [175] referenced by [571]. Next Message by Pegasus is [230].
[176] Leo: Its magnitude is determined by the quantity of other commodities and their
exchange number. Even though labor is discussed in detail.
Hans: Wrong (as far as Marx is concerned). The magnitude is expressed by the exchange relations, but it is
determined by labor.
Next Message by Leo is [177].
[201] Despain: This is an answer to [147]. The problem you are addressing here is known
as the “Transformation Problem.” The reply to this “problem” has two broad approaches.
The first can be called the empiricist (neo-Ricardian) approach. The second can be called
the rationalist approach. The empiricist approach argues that values can be directly tracable
to labor-time embodied in the commodity. One arguement of this approach claims prices
oscillate around the value (abstract labor-time socially necessary) of the commodity. Something
like a car driving down a highway, it can be in many different positions or lanes, but
never leaves the road. Thus, there is a range to how prices divate from values. The rationalist
approach argues that values (almost) never correspond to prices. The significance of
the labor theory of value, according to this approach, is the insight that it provides Marx
in understanding how capitalism works. Marx addresses this problem in Voluem three of
Capital. However, Marx’s “answer” to the problem is the root of the the so called “Transformation
Problem.” It seems to me that if there were not a Transformation Problem, (in other
words values directly correspond to prices) we would not have needed Marx’s economic
analysis at all. It is because there is an internal relation (hidden from the surface) between
value and prices that is not observable by our senses that Marx needs to spend Volumes of
work in explaining the external relation that manifest (on the surface). The second point you
address about the costs of services may not be addressed with Marx’s labor theory of value.
However, Marx continually points out the economic phenomena is social relations between
human beings. Thus, the phenomena you are pointing out is a particular social relation that
may have to be described outside the labor theory of value.
Next Message by Despain is [208].
[212] Translat: Because the measure of “magnitude” is linked to labor-time, its measurement
can be abstract. On page 130, it states that the labor needed to produce eight bushels
of grain in a good growing season is equivalent to the labor needed to produce four bushels
in a bad growing seasons. Therefore, the quantity of labor is not the issue, but the resulting
harvest. The labor is a constant unit of measure.
Hans: Frankly, I don’t understand what you are saying.
(datestring)Mon, 23 Jan 1995 16:41:54 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) The magnitude would
be determined by both the amount of labor (because it takes the same amount of time) and
the exchange value.
Hans: This is not an explanation of what you said earlier but a new theory.
(datestring)Wed, 25 Jan 1995 08:41:48 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) Ok. When planting a
crop, if it is a good year, the yield will be high. If however, you plant the same crop the
following year and it is a bad year, no rain, it took the same amount of time to cultivate the
bad production as the good even though the outcome was different. Therefore, if magnitude
is a measure of labor the magnitude is constant. The exchange value, however, changes.
Hans: I see. I guess you are right; it is a little artificial to just look at one product, if it is part of a huge mass of
output. It would probably give more insights if one looks at all the output together. Then an increase in output with

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 59
equal labor input and a diminuition of the labor input with equal output are two quite different things. But if one
looks at one product in isloation, both have the effect of reducing the labor content of this product.
Next Message by Translat is [213].
[228] Zaskar: It seems that Marx is saying that the magnitude of value of a commodity is
directly correlated to the amount of abstract labor necessary to produce it. The relationship of
a commodity with the quantity of another commodity is interesting and indicates its relative
worth, but is not the cause of the commodities value.
Hans: “Indicates” is a good word for it, Marx calls it the “form” or “expression” of the value. It is not the cause
but a consequence of the value.
Next Message by Zaskar is [229].
[255] Marinda: The point of this question seems to be to distinguish between Marx’
“value” and “exchange value”. The magnitude of “value” is determined by the quantity of
abstract human labor “socially” necessary to produce a commodity. The exchange value in
terms of some other commodity is determined by the market. All other things being equal,
the exchange value is determined by the relative amounts of labor (abstract, equal human
labor) necessary to produce various goods. If the production of x requires twice as much
labor as y, then 1 x can be exchanged for 2 y. I set out to distinguish between value and
exchange value, as I understand Marx to use these terms, but I ended up also relating them
to each other. Am I understanding Marx correctly, as you see it?
Hans: Yes. Regarding this relationship, Marx argues that exchange value is the form of value.
Next Message by Marinda is [294].
[509] Sms: If one asked Marx this question I believe that he would state that the magnitude
of value of commodity is determined by the quantity of abstract labor necessary to produce
it. I think that the value of a commodity is a combination of the following determined by
the individual: 1. Scarcity 2. Personal value 3. Monetary value (the quantity of other
commodities against which it can be exchanged?) My aunt owns an antique shop in Elk
Grove, California. On a recent visit to her store, she stated that a recent “fad” in the antique
arena is the collection of hand knit lace. She explained the value determination of the lace
in order of importance: 1) age, 2)condition, 3)design, material, size. My aunt showed me
several pieces of her collection. I was amazed at the price she had paid for these pieces.
Went-on to explain that as a child, her grandmother, (my great-grandmother) had taught
her how to knit lace, thus the lace also had a personal value to her. To me, antique lace
has no personal value–however now that I know the market value of antique lace, I might
buy lace at a yard-sale, for its monetary value, (i.e., if I thought that I could exchange it or
other commodities, or money. In writing a response to this question, I have realized what
an incredible economic model my Aunt’s antique shop is. It is the perfect working model of
scarcity, imperfect information, process of exchange, parity, and a window of economies of
scale. –Incredible
Hans: Marx uses the word “value” with a very specific meaning, which is quite different from your definition of
value. And the questions in the Annotations refer to value in Marx’s definition.
Looking back over this contribution one day later, I’d like to speculate a little why you brought up this eposide
with the antique shop. This is a situation in which the price of the things is really determined by subjective factors,
by “fads” and individual memories. Marx’s conception that value is labor, i.e., that the money which the capitalist
reaps is not just a social convention or the crystalized utility of thousands of satisfied customers, but represents
someone’s labor, and this someone is clearly not the capitalist himself, is a big challenge to social peace in any
capitalist society. We instinctively shy away from this thought. It seems to me it is a taboo of modern-day society
60 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
not to think in this direction, in order to be able to tolerate the huge income inequalities which this economy
generates.
(datestring)Mon, 6 Feb 1995 16:58:00 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) Dr. Ehrbar: I personally
believe that value depends on the usefulness of a good rather than on the costs of the labor
that produced it. What would Marx say to this?
Hans: Marx would have no troubles finding examples where something with an obviously greater usefulness than
something else still has lower value. He might also argue that usefulness is not something which can be measured
by a number.
(datestring)Wed, 8 Feb 1995 14:12:40 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) Dr. Ehrbar: I think what
you are looking for on this question is that the value of a commodity is determined by the
quantity of abstract labor within the commodity. –Am I getting close?
Hans: Well, this is what you started out with. Did we therefore go in a circle? I hope that our dialog made it a little
clear how important it is for the Marxian theory that use value or nature or demand and supply do not create value.
Only labor does. Therefore the profit of the capitalist can only come from the labor of the workers.
Next Message by Sms is [510].
[671] Sinikka: Not necessarily by the quantity of abstract labor. Example: We can walk
idly along a river bank and spot a diamond in the sand.
Hans: The value of diamonds is determined by the labor it takes on average to extract diamonds from the earth.
Not necessarily by the quantity of other commodities against which it can be exchanged.
Example: Hand-crocheted lace is very tedious to make, however, it does not have much
exchange value.
Hans: Hand-crocheting is not the socially up-to-date production method, therefore your lace does not have much
value.
Next Message by Sinikka is [672].
[765] Slrrjk: According to Marx, the magnitude of the value of a commodity is determined
by the quantity of abstract human labor socially necessary to produce the given
commodity. The quantity of labor is measured by the amount of time it takes to produce a
commodity (hours, days, weeks, etc.). The magnitude of the value of a commodity cannot
be determined by the quantity of other commodities against which it can be exchanged (an
item’s exchange value) because exchange value is not a definition of value it is an expression
of value. Exchange value is the form that the value (labor) of a commodity takes when it
enters the market place, and is not very stable in terms of time an location. If exchange
value does not define the substance of value and is simply and expression of it, measuring
the quantity of it would not bring us to the magnitude of the value of a commodity. I agree
with Marx’s argument because labor is the essence of value. And if labor is the substance of
value it is logical to determine the magnitude of the value of a commodity by measuring the
quantity of abstract labor necessary to produce it.
Hans: Ok.
Next Message by Slrrjk is [766].
Question 41 is 50 in 1995ut, 52 in 1996sp, 54 in 1997ut, and 81 in 2004fa:
Question 41 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?

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 61
[95] Hippie: Marx uses ‘It is as if’ because yes, the workers did do it, but not intentionally.
Someone who makes 2“ by 4” boards only knows that his job is to make these boards. He
does not know where they will be used when he is done, and to him, it makes no difference
if the boards are used to build a farmhouse or a treehouse. To the builder of the farmhouse,
it makes no difference where the boards come from.
Hans: Yes, this is exactly the point. They did it without intending it. The producer and consumer are sometines
not even aware that they stand in a relation witch each other.
Next Message by Hippie is [96].
[159] Eddie: Marx is saying it is as if... because the people producing the product are not
necessarily together physically making the product but their hours are together in making
the use-value of this product. I would like to use the example of an automobile. The engine
may be made in Detroit, the body in California, and the wheels in Florida. When the process
is complete and the car is assembled in Texas, the use-value will be high because all of
the hours will be included as if the hours allocated were all used together. The use-value
however, were not all together but the hours will be used together.
Hans: You are on the right track. The as-if character does however not come from differences in geographic
location, but from differences in intention. It is not their conscious intention to throw their labors together, but what
they are doing has this as an unintended effect.
Next Message by Eddie is [160].
[177] Leo: They have added their time, which equates into money, together. This might be
compared to how a husband and wife put their money together to finance the family budget.
Hans: In a sense yes, in a sense no, this is why Marx wrote “it is as if.” The question was in which sense this
comparison is not right.
(datestring)Wed, 15 Feb 1995 18:28:29 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) The “as if” phrase is
significant. People manufacturing an item do not personally know the final purchaser.
Hans: In the place under discussion in Marx’s text, marx does not discuss the relationship between producer and
final consumer, but the relationship between the different producers of the different things. But you are getting
closer.
(datestring)Mon, 27 Feb 1995 15:40:53 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) Marx uses “it’s as if”
because yes, the workers did do it, but not intentionally. Someone who makes a product, may
only know how to make that product. Producers and consumers are many times unaware of
each other.
Hans: Ok.
Next Message by Leo is [178].
[213] Translat: Before the industrial period when a farmer produced for himself and
bartered for his needs, there were specific tasks that he performed. In a capitalist society,
each section or part is independent of the whole and yet it comes together at a specific
junction to form the whole. At times, this may seem hap-hazard, but it is done by design.
Therefore, individuals do different things with their labor time.
Hans: You are saying, Marx should not have said “it is as if,” because people have actually done it?
Next Message by Translat is [214].
[229] Zaskar: I believe Marx uses the formulation “it is as if...” simply as a descriptive
explanation of resource allocation as a whole. This allocation of labor continues perpetually.
His assertion sounds much more planned than it actually is. Individuals have their own ideas
about what they want as well as their own interpretations of what society needs. Then
individuals act on these interpretations and produce use values. The sum of the parts is a
62 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
basket of goods produced by a society at any one point in time. It seems that Marx was
looking at one point in time and explaining, with hindsight, how society decided what to
produce.
Hans: The discrepancy is even greater than you say here. Individuals do not think at all about what society needs,
they only look at their own advantage. Adam Smith’s invisible hand supposedly coordinates these selfish actions
into a harmonious social outcome. Or to come back to the kind of conscious coordination of production Marx talks
abut here: individuals do not necessarily consider each other’s labors as equal, they do not even need to know that
value comes from labor. They are simply doing all that is necessary to be succesful on the market. But by this they
equalize their labors without knowing it.
Next Message by Zaskar is [231].
[672] Sinikka: The different individuals have combined their labor time. “It is as if” -form
refers to the expression: “thrown their labor time together...”. This is allegorical language.
Hans: The “it is as if” also refers to the “allocated”. I don’t think your interpretation is right.
Next Message by Sinikka is [673].
Question 42 is 51 in 1995ut, 53 in 1996sp, 51 in 1996ut, 60 in 1998WI, 66 in 1999SP, 70
in 2001fa, 84 in 2005fa, 97 in 2007SP, 97 in 2008fa, 100 in 2009fa, 104 in 2010fa, and
123 in 2011fa:
Question 42 The value of a commodity does not increase if it is made by a slow or inept
laborer. Explain carefully why not.
[77] Frosty: As I answered earlier on question 40, the magnitude of value of a commodity
is determined by the labor-time contained in that commodity. Does this mean then that the
value of a commodity increases if it is made by a slow or inept laborer? No it is does not.
If this were the case, then a commodity produced by a lazy person taking five hours would
have more value than a commodity produced by an efficient, more productive person who
only takes one hour to produce the same commodity. This cannot clearly be the case in an
average society.
Hans: You are overlooking or taking for granted that the person in capitalism is only judged by his or her products.
If you take the point of view that the person counts and not the things then this whole matter is no longer so
clear-cut.
When Marx wrote that the value of a commodity is measured by the labor-time, I believe
he meant labor-time that is “socially necessary” to produce it. Marx wrote that the labor
power used to measure the value of a commodity should have the character of the “average”
labor power of society and therefore producing a commodity should have no more time
necessary on an average. So the laborer should have the socially average degree of skill
when producing a commodity.
Hans: Again you do not seem aware how repressive a society is in which everybody must be “average” like
everybody else.
The value of a commodity may then be determined precisely according to the society.
Next Message by Frosty is [78].
[86] Sinbad: If a commodity is produced by a slow or inept laborer it will take more
time in production but does not make it more valuable. If a commodity is produced by an
average worker or by a slower than average worker the end result is the same. For instance, a
food commodity will taste the same when prepared by either worker. So the slower worker’s
commodities are not any different than what the others produce, it is just taking longer

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 63
because of their lack of skill and not because they are spending more time establishing its
value.
Hans: You are giving a lot of arguments how good it is that the value of the product does not increase if produced
by a slow producer. I was only asking why it does not increase. The answer is very simple and implicit in what you
wrote, but i would like to separate an understanding of our society from applause to it.
Next Message by Sinbad is [89].
[96] Hippie: The value of a commodity does not increase if it is made by a slow or inept
laborer because its use value does not increase. A factory-made glass that will hold twelve
ounces of water is just as useful as an identical glass that was handblown by a glassblower.
The factory glass was made in a fraction of the time that it took the glassblower. If each one
is equally useful, I would be foolish to pay more for the handcrafted glass. The glassblower
knows this and must price his glasses accordingly.
Hans: Yes.
Next Message by Hippie is [145].
[109] Alex: The value of that commodity does not increase, because chances are that a
slow or inept laborer earns a smaller wage than the laborer who is more efficient. Basically,
the value of the commodity does not change, because either you pay the laborer a small
wage over a longer time, or you pay them a higher wage over a shorter time.
Hans: You are identifying value with cost. In Marx’s theory, a laborer who is poorly paid creates as much value
as one who is well paid. Important is not how much one gets paid but whether the labor has the quality of socially
necessary labor.
(datestring)Wed, 15 Mar 1995 21:44:23 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) The value of a commodity
does not change if it is made by a slow or inept laborer because Marx describes the
labor unit by “socially necessary labor time” and then he aggregates this time into an “average
socially necessary unit.” Therefore the worker, no matter how fast, slow or inept will by
paid based on the concept of the average unit.
Hans: No.
Next Message by Alex is [112].
[124] Civic: The reason that the value of a commodity does not decrease if it is made
by slow or inept labor is because the measurement is referred to as “socially necessary
labor-time.” Marx talks about all the labor power of a society combined together and then
an average unit is described as a unit which is socially necessary. Don’t get hung up on
the formal definition of average however, a mathematical average is too simplistic for this
model. The example Marx cites about the power looms in England shows that after the
introduction of the new looms the new socially necessary labor time was equal to the new
machine. Not the average of the new versus the hand loom. In my mind socially average is
best thought of as the “norms” of the society. What is considered to be the “norm” is what it
will be measured against. In the capitalist society the norms or the “averages” will be what
all workers will be measured against and if the worker does not meet the norms they will be
replaced by someone who can. This leads into discussion of other questions regarding the
advantages and disadvantages of this system and I will end this question here.
Hans: Good. These are interesting issues and I am sure they will come up again.
Message [124] referenced by [2007SP:76]. Next Message by Civic is [127].
[125] Ranger: The value of a commodity does not increase if it is made by a slow or
unskillful laborer. The value of a commodity is determined by the socially necessary labour
time necessary to produce the commodity under the conditions of production, normal for
64 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
a given society. The average degree of skill and intensity of labour must also be prevalent
in that society to have a social average of labor time for the production of a given commodity.
The labour that forms the substance of value is equal human labour. The value
of a commodity may not be more valuable if it is produced by a lazy or unskilled worker
because the amount of labour required by the slow, lazy worker does not equal the amount
socially necessary. The value of a commodity is determined by the amount of labour socially
necessary.
Hans: This is a careful restatement of Marx’s theses, but I was looking for some reasoning, how Marx comes to
say that this is the case in a commodity society.
Next Message by Ranger is [219].
[136] Vansmack: I think that the value doesn’t increase because of the simple fact that a
smooth running corporation turns out the best products. I don’t nessessarily think that how
slow the commmodity is turned out always means that the workers are lazy. I actually think
that turning a product out in fairly slow intervals can be effective in making up its value. An
example could be when Nike markets its new top of-the-line basketball shoe. It does not
issue a another “big” shoe for a least a few months in order to keep the consumers thirsty for
their next line. The supply and demand process works out for their benefit this way.
Hans: There is a difference between having slow workers and holding back production for marketing purposes.
But regarding your other point, that a smooth running corporation has the speed of their employees pretty much
under control, I agree with you. Compare what I wrote in [138].
Message [136] referenced by [138]. Next Message by Vansmack is [139].
[138] Oj: The value of commodity does not increase if the workers are not producing
quickly enough to create the product to be sold. If a car company is composed of assembly
line workers who are unable to adequately build cars then the company will lose value
on their commodity. Assembly line workers who are quick and efficient will enable the
company to produce their commodities quickly enough to please the consumers, therefore
producing supply for the demand.
Hans: Actually, the assembly line pretty much has solved for the capitalists the problem they might have with slow
workers. The jobs are designed in such a way that the machine prescribes the pace of work, not the worker. This is
why this kind of work is so murderous.
See also [136].
Message [138] referenced by [136]. Next Message by Oj is [140].
[142] Oregon: As I stated in my reply to question 40 [141].: “Labor time socially necessary
is that required to produce an article under the prevailing socially normal conditions of
production and with the socially average degree of skill and intensity.” Value of a commodity
is derived from the time it takes to produce it. When evaluating a broad range of workers
and their times that it takes to produce a given object then the average of the workers should
be the time that is used in determining the value of the commodity. The average deleates
the notion that a commodity would be of greater value when produced by a slower or inept
worker, by matching the inept and slower workers with faster more competent workers to
come up with an average.
Hans: “deleates”? defeats? But you are right. Marx refers somewhere to the rule of thumb that if you hire 5
workers, you will get one fast one, one slow one, and three average ones.
On the other hand, you are doing as if the value of the commodity was the result of a rational human decision.
Marx puts a lot of weight on the fact that the producers do not make this decision deliberately.
Message [142] referenced by [141]. Next Message by Oregon is [143].

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 65
[144] Chance: The magnitude of value of a commodity is linked to the labor hours
involved. However, Marx clearly points out that a lazy or unskilled worker will not be
rewarded or have an increased value in his or her commodity. Marx’s own example of the
English hand-loom best illustrates his point. He states that if new technology comes in
and reduces the hours required to produce a commodity, that new amount of time becomes
the socially necessary. Those who cannot produce in the socially necessary time will not
continue in business. Therefore, those who are lazy or unskilled producers, will not increase
their commodity’s value.
Hans: Instead of carefully explaining why, you merely carefully restate the thesis without any efforts to explain it.
Your text reads as if being overtaken by technology is a sign of laziness or lack of skill. I assume you don’t
really mean that.
My concern with this point is what incentive is there for producers to decrease their labor
time, except for driving competition out of business. It would seem that there would be
“price fixing” going on. Producers would get together and agree upon an amount of time
to produce products. Furthermore, what incentive was there for science to produce a power
loom? What is the reward? What is the drive behind the ambition? It would seem as though
the benefits of decreasing the time to be socially necessary would only decrease the exchange
value of the commodity.
Hans: Very perceptive! This is the Quesnay-question (compare Question 212 in the Annotations and the text
immediately preceding it). We will have to wait until we read Chapter Twelve for the answer.
asmith¿ (datestring)Wed, 18 Jan 1995 15:45:21 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) Re: Chance’s 42. asmith¿ I have a
question about labor being used in search of scarce asmith¿ resources. If the resource has little use value, or if
the asmith¿ resource is never discovered (depleted), then what happens to asmith¿ that labor? Is it included in the
commodity with little use asmith¿ value? How does this translate to exchange value?
Again, this is an interesting issue, which I bring up in the Annotations in Question 44.
[208].
Message [144] referenced by [104] and [173]. Next Message by Chance is [146].
[152] Mikey: The best way to answer this question is by giving a example. If you had a
diamond mine and you only produced so many per week. It would not matter if you had a
lot of slow workers that produced the weekly total or if you had a few workers that produced
the same amount in a week. The price or exchange value is still the same.
Hans: I cannot follow your logic. What are you trying to say? [178] seems to be saying just the opposite: perhaps
it will help to look at it.
Next Message by Mikey is [154].
[164] Scarlett: When we discuss the value of a commodity, that value is usually related to
the amount of labor put into producing that commodity. However, as was discussed before,
Marx defines this as the “norm” or average amount of labor. A slow or inept laborer may
spend more time laboring, but it will not increase the value of that object, because the time
that laborer spent individually is not what the value of the commodity is based on.
Hans: You sound as if Marx’s text was a collection of principles according to which commodities should be
valuated. No, Marx understands his discussion as the reconstruction of what is actually happening socially in a
commodity society.
The reason the value of a commodity does not increase if it is made by a slow or inept
laborer is because the value is determined by the labor time which is necessary for the
commodity to be produced. Even if a larger amount of labor time was put into that particular
66 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
commodity because of a slow, inept, or even lazy worker, the consumer will only pay for the
amount of labor time which is normally put in to that commodity.
Hans: Now you almost have the answer I wanted. The consumer does not know how much labor is in the thing,
and he probably does not even believe that the price tag of the product represents labor. But there is one thing he
does know: the product produced by the exceptionally slow worker has exactly the same use value as that of the
average worker, therefore they both have the same price.
Back to the original contribution.
You discuss, after this, the concept that the laborer may be working more slowly in order
to make a unique contribution which nobody else can make. I would think that in this case,
the value of his “unique” commodity is different from the value of the commodity discussed
by Marx. If what is produced by the “slow laborer” is truly unique, than there is no socially
average amount of time.
Hans: My argument was that in a production for the market these unique contributions will have a very hard time
to be recognized. Mozart was perhaps a bad example: he was so prolific that he would have survived in capitalism.
But Einstein started out as an employee at a patent office. And many of us can never even dream of developing
what is really inside us.
(datestring)Wed, 25 Jan 1995 15:26:22 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) I have a question for
you. In the annotations, you discuss the socialist goal of eliciting the best in everyone by
matching the producer according to his or her best abilities. Do you think that under the
right circumstances, everyone could make the sort of contributions that Einstein or Mozart
made?
Hans: Probably not. But I think there is a tremendous lot of creativity which is never developed. I think the results
will be astounding enough, even if not everybody is an Einstein.
Next Message by Scarlett is [326].
[173] Asmith: In response to chance’s question [144] forwarded to the list about incentive
to decrease labor-time in a commodity: It seems to me as a novice that the answer is in the
increased social good for the whole. The focus moves from the individual’s limited benefit
to the benefits received by the whole and thus the benefit received by the individual through
the betterment of the whole. In my opinion, the individual by its human nature looks out for
big number one, which is why productivity has not been improving as rapidly as possible in
some societies where individual profit is not the impetus to improve productivity.
Hans: This shift in focus is the hope which we all have, but can it be done under capitalism? Capitalism singles
out, unintentionally, labor costs as the only socially relevant costs, and labor costs are rapidly becoming not a very
important part of the factors to be taken into consideration when one produces. Marx writes that in Grundrisse
somewhere.
(datestring)Wed, 18 Jan 1995 22:55:56 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) After further consideration,
and after attending tonights class, I may want to revise my last answer to chance042.
It would appear that marx would say that the individual would strive to increase productivity
because the individual in a marxist society has a fulfilling job that he or she enjoys and will
naturally do better at. This however does not take into consideration the ditch digger (example
from class) who has chosen that advocation because of the shorter hours or because of
higher wages. Why would the ditch digger care about productivity? Can he get fired, or get a
cut in pay, or have to work longer hours? Will he get to spend more time off work doing that
thing which he really enjoys if he finds a faster way to do the ditch digging ( I’m assuming
that it’s possible that he chose ditch digging because he likes to spend the extra half day that
that profession allows (assuming that that was the extra incentive offered him for choosing

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 67
that perfession) at home or else- where doing that thing which really excites him) It seems
to me that the concept falls apart when unpopular tasks are included in the total scheme of
things. It also seems to me that there are more unpopular tasks than popular tasks. Help me
out!
Hans: One thing I expect to happen in socialism (if it ever comes) is that the variety how people conduct their lives
will increase tremendously. Here in capitalism everybody with the same income does pretty much the same thing.
In a socialist society, there will be several different approaches to the problem what to do with repulsive labor.
Some can turn their labor time into something which they enjoy. Others endure repulsive labor for half a day or so
in order to get a high income, the work hard and then play hard. Others may want to automate it away. There will
perhaps also be a trend towards everybody picking up his or her own trash, etc. I am not saying that these problems
will be automatically solved when socialism comes. When socialism comes, we will finally be able to put these
problems on the agenda.
See also [208]
Next Message by Asmith is [354].
[178] Leo: The value of commodity is obtained by the amount of labor put into its manufacturing.
The value actually decreases if the laborer takes more time than necessary. The
dollar amount of a product is fairly fixed and an unskilled laborer can cost the company
money.
Hans: We are not yet talking about capitalistic firms here. The paradigm is still that of Simple Commodity Production,
in which the producers own their own means of production. But you are right. What is only a measurement
issue for the individual producer is a real constraint for the capitalist, who cannot afford hiring workers who are too
slow. I say that in the Annotations three paragraphs below Question 44 together with a Marx quote (referring to a
manuscript included in the Appendix of the edition of Capital we are working with here.)
Message [178] referenced by [152]. Next Message by Leo is [349].
[182] Vida: According to Marx, the value of a commodity is solidified labor. The measure
of value of the particular commodity, therefore can be given in terms of the measurable
amount of labor time that was necessary to produce the given commodity. Following this
logic, however, it implies that the value of a commodity would in fact increase as a laborer
worked more slowly. In order to avoid this implication, Marx measures the value of the
commodity in abstract terms of labor rather than real terms.
Hans: Don’t use the word “abstract” here, since Marx already has a very specific meaning for the term “abstract
labor.” And I would also argue against your use of the word “real”: From a social point of view, the labor actually
performed is not “real” (has no effect), while the socially necessary labor is.
In the abstract form, the value of the labor, and thus the commodity, is given in terms
of the “socially necessary labor time” which Marx defines as such, 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. (Marx,
Capital: 129)
Hans: Here you are making the error which Marx complains so much about, of identifying labor with its quantitative
aspect only.
In light of Marx’s context, the lethargic production time of the slow or inept worker would
be recognized as such and the value of their commodity would be devalued accordingly.
Hans: In other words, this effect of the market seems to have your full approval.
Next Message by Vida is [183].
[189] Sammy: Different people can perform tasks faster or slower than others, therefore
measuring the value of an object based on how long it took one person to create it is not a
good idea. If person A can make a widget in 1 hour, but it takes person B 2 hours to make
68 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
the same widget, does that make person B’s widget more valuable? Not if they are equal in
quality and appearance. Therefore it is important to use an average in determining cost. If
the average person takes 1.5 hours to make a widget, then that should be the value attached
to all widgets regardless of how long it takes for any one individual to create one.
Hans: The act of determining cost by the individual producer does not coincide with the social processes determining
value. Marx is talking here about the latter, not the former!
Next Message by Sammy is [191].
[208] Despain: This is a reply to your comments about “ditch digging.” There are I
believe two seperate questioning you are asking. The first is what is the incentive for the
ditch digger in a capitalist society. The second is the incentive in a social society. It seems
to me that Marx is clear in saying that the incentive for the ditch digger in capitalist society
is to keep his job so to keep money coming in to his family, I would assume he as taken
the job because it is the upper limit of his training or because it is the only job he is able to
find. The measuring rod of whether the ditch digger is productive, is by some social average
of labor-time necessary to dig the ditch. Hence, this will depend on his tools (shovel or
tracker etc.). As long as the worker’s productivity is somewhere around the social average,
he will keep his job. The question here, seems to me, why did our ditch digger “choose”
his job. In our society the least favored jobs are usually “choosen” by default. It seems to
me that Dr. Ehrbar was arguing, because most people would not choose these jobs, if they
had another alternative, and if we were able to offer alternative to all people, no one would
choose this job. Thus, these jobs could be highest paid job in a more humanist society. The
incentive would be the high pay, and the worker would be expected to meet some social
average of productivity, exactly how we are excepted to preform in our capitalist society. In
a “Marxist” society there is no reason to remove all incentives of money or pay. But to make
sure people are being paid for there effort and work, i.e. attempt to remove exploitation of
workers. With exploitation there is an absent owner that will take a profit from the work
performed by his/her workers. I don’t think “Greed” is problem here, as was argued in class.
Greed is a phenomena that occers in specific social relations, i.e. capitalist social relations.
One sphere of social relations in our society that is dominated and completely regulated by
capitalist relations is our family relations (usually). Within our family relations, at least in
ones I know, no one attempts to exploit the other members, everyone trys to cooperate, and
divide the worse duties etc.
Message [208] referenced by [144] and [173]. Next Message by Despain is [233].
[214] Translat: A commodity takes a certain amount of time to make. Perhaps a coat,
on the average, takes six hours to construct (sewing time only). If a slower worker takes 10
hours, the value of his labor is still, on average, only six hours. If a faster worker takes four
hours, again on average, the value of his labor is six hours. Accordingly, the human labor
that forms the item is equal to the identical labor that would be needed to do the task again.
Labor(coat)=Labor(coat)
Hans: You are saying that it makes sense that this is so, that you agree with the result the market came to. But the
question is: how does this result come about?
(datestring)Mon, 23 Jan 1995 16:39:48 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) In any business there
will be a certain amount of “dead wood” employees. There will be employees who work
faster to take up the slack of those that work slower. Therefore, the time needed to complete
a task averages out. (sorry about the mistake on question 41 earlier)

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 69
Hans: No, I had a different question. The answer is very simple, and it is implicit in what you said first, but I want
you to be aware of this step in order to understand how Marx is reasoning. You wrote:
Perhaps a coat, on the average, takes six hours to construct (sewing time only). If a slower
worker takes 10 hours, the value of his labor is still, on average, only six hours. If a faster
worker takes four hours, again on average, the value of his labor is six hours.
Hans: It seems to make sense that the 10 hours of the slower worker produce only 6 hours’ worth of labor. But
how is this rule enforced? What is the mechanism here?
(datestring)Wed, 25 Jan 1995 08:36:24 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) I am not sure what you
are asking, but I believe that if a coat takes ten hours to produce (on the average) that by
combining the two workers (one fast, one slow) the average will equal the amount of time
that is need to produce the coat. The only way to get a worker to work faster is by sanctions
from other workers or to fire him.
Hans: You are right, this is the production side. But I was talking about the market side of it. The answer I was
after is: the goods have the same use value, therefore the buyers will not distinguish between them, they must
therefore have the same value.
(datestring)Fri, 27 Jan 1995 14:49:26 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) Enforcement is usually
done by those making the coat. This moves to a labor issue. If you work too fast, those
around you will sanction you. Also if you work too slow. However, even without these
sanctions, the law of averages show that if it takes 10 hours to make the coat, the time
actually used in labor will average out to ten hours.
Hans: There are two issues here. One is what you are talking about, the other is: what is the mechanism by which
the labor of the slow worker creates less value than the one of the fast worker. This is what I was talking about.
(datestring)Wed, 8 Feb 1995 08:04:39 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) If labor is reduced to
units of labor and one labor works 6 units and the other ten, then the slower worker is
creating less value.
Hans: I think you mean the right thing but you sure are not saying it. On the market, labor is not reduced to units
of labor but to units of output. The buyer who looks at the finished product cannot tell whether it comes from a
fast or a slow worker, he will pay exactly the same amount for it either way. This is how the labor of the slower
worker socially coutns as less labor per hour than that of the faster worker. One of the consequences of this is that
the capitalist, even with the best of will, cannot afford paying the slower worker more. This is what I meant by it
being enforced by the market.
Next Message by Translat is [381].
[286] Ledzep: The answer to this question has to do with the concept that the society
as a whole determines a total value, which is based on all commodities which are produced
by the society and the time it takes to produce these goods. So, if a slow worker is in the
society, he/she is already implied in the total.
Hans: Very good point. The slow worker affects (even though only infinitesimally) the work speed which is
counted as average.
Next Message by Ledzep is [287].
[341] Stalin: This question seems kind of tricky because I’m not really sure if I agree with
it or not. At first, I thought that, yes, the value would not increase if made by a slow or inept
laborer; and, in fact, would drop in value. But, upon further contemplation I realised that a
value can increase if made by a slow or inept laborer. Take, for example, the auto industry in
which most manufacturers mass produce their products for consumption. The cars produced
are for the most part of good quality and carry a relatively cheap price tag. However, if
one looks at a Porche, which is engineered carefully and slowly, and manufactured by hand;
70 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
then one will recognize the high value and price tag which a Porche carries. The large
manufacturers put the cars together faster and more efficiently, but the Porche is a better
vehicle with a higher value.
Hans: You were doubting too much. Marx is talking here about two workers producing exactly the same product,
not Chevy versus Porsche. And the “careful explanation” I wanted is: both products have the same use value, on
the market they are indistinguishable, therefore they must have the same value.
Next Message by Stalin is [343].
[394] Makarios: In 129:2, Marx was quite explicit in explaining this concept:
Each of these units is the same as any other, to the extent that it has the
character of a socially average unit of labour-power and acts as such,...
So, while a slow or inept worker may expend more “labour-power” towards production
of a given commodity than other workers, the value of the commodity is determined by
the average amount of labor devoted to producing each unit of the commodity in question.
Therefore, the individual laborer can have no bearing on the value of the commodity that is
produced in a commodity producing society.
Hans: I wanted to hear some reasoning why this is so, instead of simply a Marx quote.
Next Message by Makarios is [395].
[573] Golfer: The use value of a commodity does not increase if it is produced by slow or
unskilled labor. The value of a commodity is determined by what labor socially needed to
produce a commodity. The labor socially needed would be determined by the average time
required considering skilled and unskilled labor to produce a commodity. The value of a
commodity will not increase due to unskilled labor or will not decrease due to skilled labor.
Hans: Marx does not just postulate this but he makes some kind of derivation. I would have liked you to explain
me some of his reasoning in your own words.
Next Message by Golfer is [804].
[673] Sinikka: Question 42: The value of a commodity does not increase if it is made by a
slow or inept laborer. There is need and use for a commodity, regardless of was it produced
by a slow or inept laborer; if we are hungry, we do not ask was the bread baked by a slow
baker or by a fast baker.
Hans: You are using a subjective concept of value here. But your argument goes through also with Marx’s concept
of value = what makes things exchangeable: on the market one does not know whether the product was produced
by a slow or a fast laborer, the use values is (by assumption) the same, therefore one will pay the same amount for
it.
Next Message by Sinikka is [674].
[699] Cmanson: The commodity is the same thing whether it is produced by a fast skilled
worker or a slow skilled worker. The price a customer would pay (whether in money or other
types of barter trades) would be the same for any two of the same items, regardless of how
long it took to produce the particular item.
Hans: Yes.
Next Message by Cmanson is [700].
Question 43 is 101 in 2008fa:
Question 43 Why must every individual commodity be considered as an average sample of
its kind? (A precise answer can be given in one or two sentences.)

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 71
[117] Allison: The particular circumstances under which a certain commodity is produced
are overlooked, as the majority of the similar commodities with the same use values
are pooled together with this particular commodity. In this sense, each commodity can be
considered to be an average sample of its kind, regardless of the labor time exhausted in the
production of that one commodity.
Hans: Very good explanation.
Next Message by Allison is [321].
[126] Titania: Because over the aggregate, every individual commodity will have an
average amount of labor, and labor equals value. some goods will take more or less time to
produce, but all labor time will approach a mean or average amount. since they all have the
ultimately same amount of labor, they have the same value and buyers/consumers have no
reason to distinguish.
Hans: You almost say it, and it seems that you mean it: the buyer on the market will not be able to distinguish between
the goods which are produced by slow laborers and those produced by fast laborers because (by assumption)
all those goods have the same use value.
A more complete development of the same ideas is in your answer [131].
Next Message by Titania is [131].
[154] Mikey: We have come to understand the socially necessary labor times has come to
mean that everyone is average. there is a average labor time for everyone as a whole. So if
you are slower or faster then everyone else you get lumped into the group of average labor
and you are not seen as anything but average.
Hans: I was asking why must this be so. And I wanted the answer to be precise, not the “you know what I mean”
kind.
Next Message by Mikey is [158].
[166] Asmith: ...because theoretically any individual commodity sits in the social market
place with all other like commodities. A commodity that takes a normal average labor-time
to produce looks like other like commodities that may have been produced individually using
less efficient labor.
Hans: This is exactly the answer I was looking for.
Next Message by Asmith is [173].
[343] Stalin: I think that this is true because if one is looking at the average of something
then you must take into account every individual factor, which is every individual commodity.
Hans: You answered the question why one must consider every individual commodity when computing the average,
but not why one cannot forget all the others when one deals with one commodity only.
Next Message by Stalin is [344].
[700] Cmanson: Because some will be better and some will be not as good in quality.
Also some will be made quicker some will take longer to produce.
Hans: If some are better than others, isn’t this a reason not to consider them as average samples (which means,
disregard their differences)?
(datestring)Wed, 1 Mar 1995 21:20:16 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) Would the the fact that
there are major discrepancies in the quality of the commodities in its self require that each
individual commodity must be considered on an average. Therefore, allowing the good to
cancel out the bad.
Hans: You are trying to argue this in isolation of the text.
Next Message by Cmanson is [701].
72 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
Question 44 is 53 in 1996ut, 58 in 1997ut, and 129 in 2012fa:
Question 44 Under capitalism, the individual circumstances under which a commodity is
produced are not socially recognized in the value of the commodity. Give arguments for and
against adopting such a principle (that only results are counted, not the effort) in a planned
economy.
[75] Darci: “Wealth” meaning access to large quantities of commodities and exchange
potential has come about as a result of several things. Two of these things is specialization
in production and technological advancement. These two elements tend to de-skill a laborer,
but they also allow the laborer to produce large quantities of commodities.
Hans: The de-skilling is not a necessary consequence of advancing technology. It is really a quite paradoxical
result that the higher the technology the dumber the producer. Technology can move in many directions, and even
modern mainstream growth theory recognizes that technology is “endogenous.” (Korkut Erturk on our faculty is
knowledgeable about this.) Marx argues very strongly that the kind of technology seen here in capitalism is very
much influenced by the fact that production is at the same time exploitation, that the worker has to be coerced and
controlled – of course not too openly, this would invite troubles, but in many subtle automatic ways.
The more commodities a society produces –the greater the wealth. The use values are
established by that society and as a whole it becomes wealthier. An example of this would
be the personal computer. With the technological advances in the industry and the “assembly
line” production of labor came the opportunity for “the average” person to own a personal
computer because the exchange value was low enough to make it affordable. If one observes
the amount of labor required to produce this piece of equipment, it has declined tremendously
over the last twenty years and a relatively unskilled person can put one together,
illustrating how this process can work to make labor “equal.” The amount a worker produces
is more equal and individual effort obscured by the process. Those of us who benefit
from this can be grateful that the human labor costs are low so we can exchange less of our
money for more commodity.
Hans: Am I right to assume that your argument that “human labor cost are low” not only refers to increases in
productivity, which means that less labor is required to produce comparable use values, but also to the low wages
of the unskilled workers who perform this technologically advanced labor? Wage costs should not be considered
costs, think about it!
On the “down” side, labor that has evolved into a “mass” tend to take little pride in his
work (non one knows or cares who produced the product) and there is little accountability
of the quality of the product. This attitude tends to lead to wastefulness in a society because
labor is not recognized in the value of the commodity. A good example is socks. A hundred
years ago socks were knitted by hand and hours were spent producing the product. If a sock
got a hole in it, it was repaired and worn for a long time. Today, if your sock gets a hole in
it, it is thrown away along with its mate and replaced by a new pair–because if you have ever
tried to repair a modern sock you know that it is wasted effort.
Hans: That is why I always buy identical socks by the dozens – then at least I can keep the “mates,” and I don’t
waste my time sorting socks after the laundry is done. You are not going to convince me that the olden days were
better when women were seen knitting and repairing socks in every free minute.
To get serious again, there are many issues involved in these everyday examples. The relationships between
people and their clothes under capitalism is certainly worth investigating. All this is related with “commodity
fetishism” and will be the reading assignment next week. I would try to argue along the following lines: interpersonal
relations are so impoverished due to the relentless competition we all are forced into, that people hunger for
substitutes. Making a good first impression with your clothes since relationships are not going to last long anyway,

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 73
looking “wealthy” even if you aren’t, emulating the blow-dried types you see on TV commercials, all this forced
people to prefer new cheap polyester suits to old worn-out but oh so comfortable cotton or wool gear.
This makes me believe that we exchange quality for quantity when we remove socially
recognized value from the commodity. Is it worth the tradeoff? Yes, if you need a personal
computer with a modem to take class.
Hans: Now you are opening up a new but very important aspect of technological progress. Increases in technology
not only provide the same goods at lower prices, but new goods become available which allow completely new
experiences. This is what I am trying to do with this class. Instead of processing and controlling more and more
students with a sophisticated assembly line methods (some of my colleagues in technologically enhanced teaching
have their students write papers which nobody ever reads but which are graded by a computer), I am trying to create
completely new experiences and forms of interaction.
(datestring)Sun, 22 Jan 95 21:39:37 MST(/datestring) I am not trying to argue that was
is the reason for low costs but that less man hour labor is required for the same level of
production and now to produce the same number of commodities it is not necessary to have
as many employees. It is not my intention to imply that wage be considered a cost but that the
type of labor per unit does not require as great a personal investment. Also, I don’t believe the
“good old days” are better. I just used the socks example to illustrate that personal investment
in performance of tasks seems not to be as likely in view of technological advances – believe
me, I enjoy my blow dryer, but I don’t want to sell “myself” cheap, I also value meaningful
interpersonal relationships and do try to “work” at what I believe to be my personal best.
This is not a soap box reflection but merely an observation and I have seen that compensation
does not reflect individual labor in the work force I am most familiar.
Hans: Thank you for your reply.
Next Message by Darci is [99].
[128] Yoda: In a capitalist society we deal with a lot of competition in producing commodities.
The group that can make a certain commodity faster, can also produce them at a
lower rate. I used to work for a manufacturing company called Weslo Inc. They produced
excercise equipment such as treadmills and steppers. Their biggest competition came from
a company called Voit/AMF. Both companies made almost identical products and both companies
were actually in the same city. This made for some strong competition between the
two. The company that could produce the most, usually sold the most at lower cost to the
manufacturer. The reason that it cost less for the manufacturer is because the worker was
producing more, given the same circumstances and pay rate. This shows an example of
production of a commodity in a capitalist society without social recognition.
Hans: The extra work of the workers in the more “efficient” company was socially recognized, but the capitalists
got the fruit of this labor, not the workers. The workers probably worked so fast because they feared for their jobs.
This is a good example how competition between capitalists really puts pressure on the workers.
Marx argues that there aren’t lazy or unskilled workers, some are just better at different
tasks and thus have their own place in the community and he says that their jobs are “socially
necessary”.
Hans: Don’t confuse the ideas about socialism which we discussed in class with Marx’s text. Marx’s Capital talks
about capitalism. The reduction to socially necessary labor is done by the market.
In our capitalistic society, competion is dominant over ideas such socially necessary labor
time. If you don’t put in your fourty hours a week or work at least four to five days a week,
people seem to look at you as a lazy person. I don’t think a system that counts socially
74 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
necessary labor time would work (at least in our society). I can’t really think of many jobs
where only results are counted and not the actual effort. Maybe someone who gets a huge
payoff for really doing nothing such as a thief or someone who gambles their money away
and wins the jackpot or the lottery.
Hans: There is a difference between producing something and stealing something. I was only talking about the
former.
Maybe it could be a commodity that everyone wants such as a BMW or a house overlooking
the city with extra high propery value. These types of commodities are rare, in that
not everyone can afford them. This is what drives the price way up. This probably isn’t what
you’re looking for. I find this quite interesting but very difficult to understand. Maybe you
could help me out by writing a few examples on the E-mail.
Next Message by Yoda is [129].
[191] Sammy: That capitalism does not take individual circumstances into consideration
has both good and bad qualities. If an individual must overcome an obstacle, maybe a
physical disability, to achieve a goal, that extra adversity should be rewarded when the value
of the item is considered. That is not the case, but the result of not considering this kind
of obstacle is efficiency. Those who are not able to produce a particular commodity as
efficiently as someone else will be forced to search for another commodity he or she can
produce more efficiently. This benefits all in the long run as products are produced and sold
at the best levels.
Hans: Good luck for your search, disabled individual! (I do not mean you, Sammy, but the individual who must
overcome an obstacle.)
Next Message by Sammy is [193].
[207] Telemark: In all circumstances it is a bad idea to simply look to an end and ignore
the means-to-the-end as if it did not exist.
Hans: Nice formulation!
In my personal experience that many times means denying yourself and others of a true
understanding of the task at hand. Also, the ability to excel and be recognized (greed and
incentive) for achieving a particular skill or ability play a great role in bringing one satisfaction
and even excitement for working day in and day out. One of the great tragedies that
brought the demise of the former Soviet Union was this very point. Personal gain was no
where to be found in the work place. The morale and group-esteem of the workers was that
of tedious work and nothing more. Work place goals were attained, but why? Only to satisfy
the five and ten year plans set out for by the central government.
Hans: In theory workers in a socialist society should be working for themselves; their product should be their goal.
I agree that in the Soviet Union this was not the case, but I am not willing to concede that this is impossible.
If there is a good thing about such a production system it would be that of little waste,
lower prices and I would assume availability for all.
Hans: Good and well-balanced presentation.
Next Message by Telemark is [209].
[326] Scarlett: I’m not sure if this first statement is necessarily true. I can think of several
examples where the individual circumstances under which the commodity was produced is
socially recognized. “Hand knitted” sweaters, or “hand carved” furniture are commodities
that many people are willing to pay a high price for the individuality of the item. Many
people are also willing to pay a higher price for merchandise if they believe that the producer

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 75
will benefit and that the producer is less fortunate than they. In a planned economy, in order
for central planning to work, I would think it would be necessary to only look at the results
and not the effort, because your goal is to provide for everyone in the society.
Hans: Well, here your pro-capitalist and anti-socialist bias shows through. I am not blaming you for it. The thing
with the “less fortunate” producer may be true in Utah (is it? anyone please enlighten me). If it would be true world
wide, the world would be a much better place. The general principle in capitalism is to take advantage of those who
are weaker than you.
Scarlett: I know that there are some projects in Utah and in other places where there are battered women who produce
different products and sell them in retail stores. I’m also aware of people from Utah who work in development
projects in third world countries and bring back crafts made by the people there to raise money for these projects.
I think that most people feel better knowing that their money is going to benefit someone. I agree with your last
statement however. I also know that in many third world countries there are people who are being exploited for
their labor and other resources.
I think, however, that effort should be socially recognized in any situation. Isn’t effort,
essentially the attempt to improve oneself or society in some way? Even in a situation of
central planning, people in the society should always be looking to improve themselves and
the society as a whole. Making an “effort,” therefore, would be good for all of the society.
Hans: The issue is more complex than apparent at first. Soviet-Union type socialism has made attempts to reward
effort over results, with disastrous consequences. It is very easy to fool yourself and think that you are trying hard,
although you aren’t. Many attempts at socialism overlook that individuals are one thing consciously and another
thing unconsciouly.
Next Message by Scarlett is [329].
Question 45 is 54 in 1995ut, 56 in 1996sp, 60 in 1997WI, 63 in 1997sp, 59 in 1997ut, 79
in 2002fa, 81 in 2003fa, 90 in 2005fa, 104 in 2007SP, 107 in 2008SP, 105 in 2008fa, 112
in 2010fa, and 131 in 2012fa:
Question 45 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?
[110] Tsunami: Marx argues that the value of raw materials is determined by the concentration
of labor time in that raw material. As he pointed out via Eschwege’s calculations,
even though 80 years of diamonds mined from Brazil represented much more labor and were
much more valuable, the price was still much lower than that for one year and half’s average
product of Brazilian sugar and coffee. The scarcity of materials causes much more labor to
be represented in a smaller volume; if that same amount of labor where to be represented in
a much larger volume of diamonds, the value of diamonds would fall. As he says, “If man
succeeded, without much labor, in transforming carbon into diamonds, their value might fall
below that of bricks”: there is value in scarcity.
Hans: Marx meant this not as an argument for “value in scarcity” but for “value in labor.”
As for the third part of question 45, in order to answer that I must point something out.
I think that there is a very definite difference between “value due to scarcity” and “value
due to forced scarcity.” Marx’s example of diamonds is kind of empty for me because at the
time Marx wrote, diamonds were hardly something “useful” instead they were, and still are
in some cases, bright gems to adorn crowns and ring fingers. In fact, if it weren’t because
the diamond mines in South Africa have such a tight monopoly control over world diamond
export and production, diamond prices would probably collapse, after all, who really needs
76 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
a diamond for survival, or even for life improvement? Value due to scarcity would be more
like the OPEC cartel’s decision to cut off oil supplies, or like a shortage in drinkable water.
That value skyrockets, even if the labor is the same as before the Cartel decided to cut oil
off. So do I agree that Marx’s argument is still valid in the case of an exhaustible resource?
Yes, I would say that if people were able to process that exhaustible resource without much
labor, its value would fall if that exhaustible resource were not essential for survival or if at
the time it did not appear to be exhaustible. But once that resource became exhausted, the
value of the necessary resource would be much higher than the value of the luxury resource,
regardless of labor time.
Hans: Yes, this is somewhat along Marx’s theory of ground rent which he develops in Volume III of Capital.
Next Message by Tsunami is [171].
[113] Alex: The value of raw materials is determined, in Marx’s theory, by the quantity
of labor that is needed to provide that resource as a commodity. This may be seen in the
example of the bushels of corn “the same quantity of labor is present in eight bushels of corn
in favorable seasons and in only four bushels in unvavorable seasons”, thus we see that the
value of the corn is being derived from the labor that is required. The scarcity of these raw
materials does influence the value. If a material is scarce (such as diamonds), then chances
are that discovery or harvesting, of these materials costs, on average, a great deal of labor
time, thus increasing the value of that scarce material. This is seen in the example of the
diamonds, and that since they are scarce they are of greater value, which represents a great
deal of labor time. (However I believe that diamonds are not realy as scarce as the diamond
industry would like us to believe.)
Hans: Right.
Marx’s theory would hold true in the case of the exhaustible resource. If a resource is
exhaustible chances are that it is or will be scarce, and will be of greater value because of the
great deal of labor time that is represented in the extraction of that resource. Marx might say
that as the resource is available in smaller and smaller supply, that it’s value may continue
to rise according to the resource’s scarcity.
Hans: Increasing scarcity does not always raise the extraction costs. One needs a theory of ground rent to cover
these situations.
Next Message by Alex is [267].
[129] Yoda: Marx mentions that the value of a commodity would remain constant, if
the labor time required for its production also remained constant. However the production
changes with with different variations in the productivity of labor which is determined by
your degree of skill, technology and social organization. Marx says that the value of raw
materials have the same constant value as long as the labor time for finding and producing
these raw materials remains constant. Rare commodities such as diamond or gold take a lot
longer to mine so their value is going to be worth a lot more than a raw material that is easier
to find, however with richer mines, the same quantity of labor would result in more gold or
diamonds so their value would fall. If diamonds or gold were easy to find, everyone would
have a lot of it, thus resulting in reduced prices and a reduced market for these products. I
believe that Marx’s argument would not hold true for an exhaustible resource. If this resource
ran out, we wouldn’t need anyone to find it. The price of this commodity would go way high
because of the rarity of it but there would be no reason to pay someone to find it because it
no longer existed.

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 77
Hans: I agree, Marx’s theory assumes implicitly that the goods are reproducible in any desired quantities.
Next Message by Yoda is [130].
[146] Chance: Marx’s theory expresses the value of raw materials according to the labor
hours required to extract the commodity. For example, diamonds require huge investments
of labor hours to “produce.” Therefore, their magnitude of value is very high. Extracting
paper from trees does not require the same amount of labor hours as mining and therefore
trees as raw materials have a lesser value. Additionally, scarcity of the raw material has a
significant impact upon its value. Back to the same example, if trees start to disappear of the
earth (whether we used them all or they just began to die) their value will increase drastically.
Labor hours will be increased because no longer can one just go out into your local tree grove
and start wacking. Producers will have to travel farther, as well as deal with for example
environmental issues. Both require more time and hence an increase in value. The converse
holds as well. If diamonds became very easy to access, or if a mine became very “rich”, the
value of the diamond would decrease–the hours required per diamond become much less.
Marx’s argument holds as resources diminish. The less accessible recourses become, the
more value they will command. More and more labor hours will be required to spend the
time hunting for a new spot to mine for example. Or, mines will have to go deeper and
deeper into the earth, which again requires more time. As resources become scarce, their
value will definitely increase.
Hans: It is not automatic that extractions costs increase when resources are close to depletion. [230]::
Next Message by Chance is [147].
[149] Braydon: I am very unfamiiar with Marx’s views and am having a hard time
understanding the reading. So, could you please help me expand on the questions that I am
answering and make sure I am understanding what he is trying to say. According to Marx
the value of raw materials is determined by how much labor is put into the extraction or
producing of them for the use of man. It is different, however, from the way we, as a society
determines the value. We consider the raw material, like coal, as valuable if there is a small
amount of it in circulation. ie. the coal mines are not producing like they should, thus there
is less to go around. The value of that coal will be more than if it came from a mine that was
producing a lot. The coal that came from a rich mine should be just as valuable, maybe even
more so if there was more labor involved. As I said earlier, the scarcity of the raw materials
determines how valuable they are. If there is too little to go around it will be more valuable
then if there was enough to satisfy the need. Yes, the value of a resource is dependent on
the amount of supply that is available, but does Marx feel that should be the case? Doesn’t
Marx believe that the value should be determined by the amount of labor involved?
Hans: First of all, Marx is not writing here what he thinks should be the case, but this his analysis of existing
capitalist society.
Secondly, there are two kinds of scarcity. The natural scarcity affects the value to the extent that it affects the
time needed to harvest the resource [230]., but the scarcity in the market place does not affect the value [74]..
Next Message by Braydon is [151].
[158] Mikey: Marx says that the amount of labor needed to produce or get the raw
materials determines its value. If the resources that you needed were just laying on the
ground then everyone would have it and there would be no value or very little. Yes Marx’s
theory is still valid. If we look at oil reserachers have shown that at some point and time
78 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
there will be no more oil. When the feel that it is being used up to fast then the value raises
and by the time it is almost gone the value will be increased even until it is all used up.
Hans: Because we feel it is almost used up and therefore valuable? or because of the labor input? But if the
resources are finite and almost depleted, then you have a monoply situation.
Next Message by Mikey is [605].
[163] Asmith: The value of raw materials is determined by the normal average labor-time
to produce, (discover, mine, harvest, gather, etc.) those raw materials. More labor-time is
required to produce scarce raw materials. Increased labor-time increases value. The more
finite the supply, the greater the value of the produced commodity. Marx’s argument that as
the labor-time to produce a commodity increases that its value increases, holds true (there is
more labor crystallized in the commodity) even in the case of scarce raw materials.
Hans: This is right but I do not think that it holds true for exhaustible resources. Then you need a ground rent
argument as developed by Marx in Volume III of Capital.
However, Marx says that nothing can be of value without being an object of utility and
that if a thing is useless, so is the labor contained in it. The labor does not count as labor
and therefore creates no value. Bouncing a ball, even strenuously, does not increase the
value of the ball. A labor-time intensive search resulting in no discovery has not produced
an adequate object of utility, therefore it is not a value. Labor necessarily must be employed
in the production of utility to be social labor.
Hans: It is in the nature of these searches that some fail, some don’t. The value of the product is determined by
the average search times. Also a failed search can be socially necessary.
Next Message by Asmith is [165].
[168] Stxian: In the previous sections, Marx argues that if two commodities have the same
amounts of labor input, which means it used the same labor time to produce it, then, they
have the same magnitude of value. Marx’s point on the value of raw materials is the follow up
of his analysis of the value of commodities. Marx argues that the various production function
and circumstances influences the value of the raw materials, included in the production are
technology, productivity of labor, worker’s individual skills and the whole structure and
strategies of the organization.
Hans: In Marx’s theory, the structure and strategies of organization do not affect value at all. Value is not equal to
cost.
Most importantly, Marx stated that the scarcity will greatly effect the value of these raw
materials, he pointed out that the more scarce the raw materials, the greater the value of the
raw materials despite the amount of labor input.
Hans: Not despite! This is exactly Marx’s point.
In the case of an exhaustible resource, Marx’s argument is still valid today, because with
or without government intervention (the anti-trust law used on Monopoly firms), producer
and consumer both knew that this resources will be exhausted someday, and if government
regulate it’s production and set a price seiling, the producer will fight back and argue with the
government and cutting back their production on one paticular products, and if this product
is a necessity then people will still be willing to pay for it on higher prices. If governments
doesn’t intervene, I’m sure the value of theat exhaustible resources will be skyrocketing high
untile researchers and technology can find another product and resources to substitute in the
production process according to Marx’s value of raw materials theory.
Hans: Marx’s theory of ground rent goes in that direction.

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 79
Next Message by Stxian is [170].
[169] Nena: Marx argues that the value of any article is the amount of labor time socially
necessary for its production. So, the value of raw materials is determined by its discovery
cost, the average labor time, necessary to produce the raw materials. If the amount of raw
materials is scarce, then the average labor time required to discover it is greater. And therefore,
the value of it would be higher. If we apply this Marx’s argument on an exhaustible
resource with finite supply, it is doubted that the exhaustible resource will have ever been
paid for at its full value, although it cost much more labor and represented more value.
Because the full (true) value of an exhaustible resource seems difficult and impossible to
calculate by only using the labor time required to discover or produce it.
Hans: It is difficult to estimate the “true value” af anything in dollars and cents. But this is also not the issue. The
issue is: how does a commodity society valuate an exhaustible resource? I agree that the production cost is not the
whole story. There is also a monopoly situation involved.
Next Message by Nena is [172].
[183] Vida: In Marx’s theory the value of raw materials is represented by the quantity of
labor exerted to provide a given amount of that particular raw material. Scarcity of any such
raw material influences the value of that material since Marx includes the costs of discovery
in his labor function and qualifies these costs as a part of the quantity of labor exerted. If a
series of poor mines produced a small amount (in essence produced a scarcity effect) of that
particular raw material the discovery cost (or quantity of labor exerted) is inflated and the
value of such a material would rise. Inversely, if a series of rich mines yielded an abundant
amount of materials then the discovery cost is minimized and the value of the material falls.
Marx’s argument is still valid in the case of an exhaustible resource, which is present only
in finite supply. (However, I must note that I do not know of any resource that is in a infinite
supply.) A good example of a finite source is the abundance of consumable water, as the
amount of “clean” water is exhausted, the amount of labor exerted either to find “clean”
water or to sterilize the polluted water becomes increasingly higher and as a result the value
becomes increased.
Hans: Marx’s discovery cost argument assumes that supply can be adjusted to demand. If supply is limited, then
other considerations enter.
Next Message by Vida is [184].
[230] Pegasus: The value of raw materials is determined by how much labor is put into
retrieving it. The example that is used is that the same amount of labor might be put into
harvesting eight bushels of corn and four bushels of corn in a good and bad year respectively.
The cost of producing only four bushels is greater, and thus the value of the corn in a bad
year will be greater. This means that a scarce material will be of greater value than a plentiful
one. In the case of a scarce resource, my opinion is that its value will depend on wether we
perceive it as scarce or not. Let me use oil as an example. As long as oil is seen as plentiful,
its value will remain relatively low. If we suddenly realized that our supply of oil would run
out in the near future, the value of oil would undoubtedly increase (at least until we found
some substitutes). In my opinion therefore, Marx’s argument is still valid.
Hans: This reasoning with the receptions is completely different than Marx’s. And if perception and labor necessary
to extract do not coincide, then the labor necessary to extract will win out. In other words, if it is known that
a resource is about to be exhausted, but the remaining supplies do not need more labor to harvest, then the price
will not automatically go up. (This is for instance true for fish which swim in schools and which can be detected
by satellites). Talk to Gabriel Lozada about that.
80 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
(datestring)Wed, 25 Jan 1995 14:50:05 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) In the last part of question
45: “Is Marx’s argument still valid in the case of an exhaustible resource, which is
present only in finite supply?”, your comment was entirely correct. This goes to show how
difficult it is to see new points of view. My answer did not reflect an understanding of the
Marxian perspective, only of my own. It is true that price will not go up it the labor required
for production does not go up.
Message [230] referenced by [146], [149], and [175]. Next Message by Pegasus is [311].
[294] Marinda: In the way that Marx uses the word, the “value” of raw materials is
nothing, as long as they are really raw, un-dug up, and undiscovered. As soon as someone
puts labor (abstract, equal, human labor) into looking for the material or any step after that,
value is created. Scarcity could affect the magnitude of value if it changes the amount of
labor (measured in time) that is required to produce the “raw” material. If the resource is
limited and/or exhaustible, it could only affect value if it also changes the amount of labor
required. If we’re talking about exchange value, things are different. If the resource is
limited but in high demand, the market will determine a high price, out of proportion to the
labor time that is socially necessary for its production.
Hans: Very good. This is exactly right.
Next Message by Marinda is [297].
[568] Golfer: Marx has stated that the value of a commodity would remain the same
if the time to produce it also remained the same. The raw materials used in producing
these commodities is a constant factor due to the continued scarity of supply. As the scarity
becomes greater the cost for the raw materials will go up, this is because more labor and
technology will be required. I think Marx argument is not valid because as the finite supply
becomes less and less, even if it is easier to get the cost will continue to go up.
Hans: I take it you do not mean that the “cost” will continue to go up, since it easier to get, but the price which this
thing will command on the market. I agree with you. For resources in limited supply a special theory is needed,
and Marx indeed develops a theory of “ground rent” in volume III of Capital.
Next Message by Golfer is [570].
[766] Slrrjk: The value of raw materials is determined according to Marx by the labor
necessary to prepare it, discover it, etc. Without any human labor, the raw material would
have no value according to Marx. Marx states (R:131) that an item can possess use-value, but
that it can contain no value if its “utility to man is not mediated through labor”. The scarcity
of an item can effect its value if it effects the quantity of labor necessary to produce a given
quantity of an item. Marx uses the example of diamonds. He explains that diamonds are
very rare and as a result a great deal of labor time is required to produce a very small volume
of diamonds. If on the other hand diamonds were to become more abundant (mines being
richer with diamonds) then the same volume of diamonds that was obtained above could be
obtained with less labor time. As a result the value of diamonds would decrease. Marx’s
argument (that value is determined by labor) still holds true in the case of an item that is an
exhaustible resource in limited supply if we are speaking of an item in terms of its value, as
Marx defines it, and not of its exchange value. The value of the exhaustible resource would
be the same as any other resource if the amount of labor necessary to produce it were the
same. In the market however, and exhaustible resource in limited supply’s exchange value
may be different than its true value because of market forces.
Hans: ok.

Next Message by Slrrjk is [767].
U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 81
Question 46 Is the use-value the reason of the exchange-value?
[72] Darci: It is difficult to answer this question with anything other than an “it depends.”
In Marx’s discussion on the coat and linen, it appears that exchange value is linked to use
value. Whether it is the reason for the exchange value seems unclear. He discusses the
amount of human labor required to produce both which leads me to believe that exchange
value may be the reason for use value in the sense that it may be the final product which
contains the value.
Hans: Marx distinguishes between three concepts: “exchange value,” “use value,” and “value”. Are you using the
concept “value” here in Marx’s sense, or perhaps synonymously to “use value”?
When viewed from the perspective of the linen and coat, the coat has a specific use value,
whereas, the linen in its unfinished form has not much use value. The linen receives its value
when additional labor changes its properties i.e. into a dress, a table cloth, or a coat. This
perspective then could change the question into, “does the quantity of labor change the use
value which affects the exchange value?”
Hans: Marx’s concept of use value is not just the value to the end user; intermediate products also have use value.
Marx says that explicitly on the first page of Capital
Neither does it matter here how the object satisfies these wants, whether directly as means of
living, i.e., as an object of enjoyment, or indirectly as means of production.
I don’t quite understand your argument; but taking this into account you may probably want to revise it.
(datestring)Sat, 28 Jan 1995 09:25:04 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) I have been struggling to
comprehend this question and also with technology to get into the other students’ answers. I
finally got the information I needed. Wednesday’s lecture on the clearification of use-values
and exchange values helped tremendously, also [127], and [143], helped. I agree with civic’s
observation. Use value is the carrier for exchange value if I use the analogy of a carrier wave
that you gave in class. Thank you again for clearifying this issue. Do you need more than
this answer?
Hans: No, this is good. I appreciate the cross references.
Next Message by Darci is [74].
[89] Sinbad: Some things can have a use-value without having an exchange-value. Things
such as the air we breathe, the water we drink, the soil in which we plant are all something
useful to us. But this use-value is obtained without labor and this constitutes no exchange
value according to Marx. The labor put forth provides a reason for the exchange of usevalues.
One must remember even though something has a use-value and no exchange-value;
it cannot be said that something has an exchange-value but not use-value. In order to want
to exchange or trade something, there must be utility or use-value found in it to constitute
an exchange.
Hans: Ok.
Next Message by Sinbad is [90].
[127] Civic: No, the use-value is not the reason of the exchange value, it is however the
carrier of exchange value. A commodity can have use value without having exchange value.
Marx cites several examples of things having use-values without having value. Air, soil,
natural meadows, etc fall into this category. We also realize that if the commodity could be
82 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
obtained without labor it would still maintain its use value but it would have no exchange
value. The reciprocal argument does not hold true however. A commodity cannot have
exchange value if it does not have use value. It is useless. It cannot be exchanged because it
does not contain any use-value. Any labor in this type of commodity does not count as labor
because it creates no use-value (Note by Engels) 131:1. Therefore we see that use value is
the carrier of exchange value, but not its reason.
Hans: Good.
Message [127] referenced by [72]. Next Message by Civic is [224].
[130] Yoda: This question asks if the use-value is the reason of the exchange value? I
interpret that as aking if the use-value is the reason why there is such a thing as exchange
value? Engals notes that in order to become a commodity, the product must be transferred
to the other person for whom it serves as a use-value through the medium of exchange. The
answer to this question as I understand it would be yes because if the object has no use-value
to anyone, there is no reason for it to be exhanged to another. On the other hand, an object
may have a use-value to someone where it has no use-value to another. An example might
be a car. If you don’t need, or know how to use the car, it will have no use-value to you.
Those that need a form a transportation and know how to use a car will find the use-value of
this commodity very useful.
Hans: You point out correctly that without use value nothing would be exchanged; but that does not make the use
value the reason for the exchange value, only a condition.
Next Message by Yoda is [293].
[139] Vansmack: I say yes. The use value is the most imporant of any of the values.
Without the need for use all products would be “useless” and worthless. In order to have the
exchange value there needs to be a use value. An example is an automobile plant. It employs
thousands of workers, but those workers would never be employed if not for the people who
want to actually buy and use the automobiles. Supply and demand can dictate the exchange
value and therefore control the labor needed for a certain product.
Hans: And what would Marx say?
Next Message by Vansmack is [301].
[140] Oj: Yes the use-value is the reason for exchange value. If a product does not
need use-value it is worthless as exchange value. There needs to be a demand in order
for a product to be exchanged. If a car company were to build millions of cars, but the cars
required no use-value then there would be no need to buy or sale them. In order for a product
to be exchanged it must have some used-value. If people do not need cars to travel then they
are not going to buy them. This is the definition of used value. The used value controls the
need for exchange value and the laborers working to produce value.
Hans: Use value is the condition for exchange value, its carrier. It is like the canvas on which the picture is painted.
Next Message by Oj is [303].
[143] Oregon: When looking at the phrase “use value” it could have a different use value
to different people. A book could be used for a tool for a class while the same book could
be used as a paper weight. Although the use value is different for the two people (use value
is the value desired by the consumer) the exchange value (monetary value) is still the same.
It is the same because it is determined by the time it takes to produce the commodity. The
use value is performed by the consumer. The exchange value is determined by the hours and

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 83
skill level (technology) that it takes to produce the commodity matched with a reasonable
price that could sell in the market place in capitalism.
Hans: Good thinking. You are arguing that the use value cannot be the reason for the exchange value because the
use value differs from individual to individual, while the exchange value does not. (In other words, you understand
correctly that exchange value is not something individual, not an individual’s willingness to make a certain trade,
but the conventional exchangeability of the product on the market.)
In the last sentence you make an amendment to Marx which may seem in contradiction with Marx but really
isn’t. Instead of saying that the exchange value (you mean the quantity of the exchange value, see Question 90) is
determined by the socially necessary labor time, you say
The exchange value is determined by the hours and skill level (technology) that it takes to
produce the commodity matched with a reasonable price that could sell in the market place
in capitalism.
Hans: This is in accordance with Marx, see in the Annotations the text between Questions 29 and 30.
Message [143] referenced by [72]. Next Message by Oregon is [403].
[148] Johny: Is the use-value the reason of the exchange value? The exchange value is
definitely dependent on the use value. As explained by Marx, the use values constitute the
material content of wealth. The use-value of a commodity is worth just as much of another
as long as it is in a certain quantity. One dollar in pennies is still worth a dollar even if that
dollar is presented in quarters. The only way to determine an exchange value is to consider
the use value of an object.
Hans: Since you can replace pennies by quarters, this means that the value of money is exactly not dependent on the
composition of the change you give. In the same way Marx argues that the value of a commodity is not dependent
on the use value in which it is represented. Exchanging coats and potatoes is the same thing as exchanging quarters
and pennies.
Next Message by Johny is [150].
[156] Ida: Yes and no, because if the same use value could be obtained without labor
then it would have no exchange value, therefore the use value cannot be the reason of the
exchange value. However, a commodity cannot have exchange value without use value.
Exchange values represent something equal and use value represents worth, the two must go
hand in hand.
Hans: If you go to the job interview not appropriately dressed, chances are you won’t get the job. This does not
mean your clothes are the reason for getting the job. Well, in some cases they are.
Message [156] referenced by [170]. Next Message by Ida is [157].
[170] Stxian: Marx’s opinion on use-value and exchange value is that use-value is the
carriers to exchange value. But use-value is not the cause and reason to exchange value,
because if the same use value can be obtained without labor and any other production input
(for instance, air, water and trees), then it will not have exchange value. And a thing can
be a use-value without being a value. So, Marx argues that use-value is not the causes and
reason of the exchange value, because a thing can only have exchange value when it have
both social use-value and a labor inputed into its use-value, and not by the cause of use-value
alone.
Hans: Good. I tried to give an illustration in [156].
Next Message by Stxian is [174].
[231] Zaskar: No, it is the carrier of exchange value. However, for a commodity to have
exchange value, it must be of use to society. In other words as Marx wrote, commodities
have a “dual nature”. An item must have both a use value and a exchange value to be a
commodity.
84 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
Hans: Why do you say “however” at the beginning of the second sentence. This is what being a carrier is all about.
If the carrier is not there, then the thing that needs to be carried cannot exist.
Next Message by Zaskar is [306].
[263] Chp: No. The use-value remains the same regardless if it is exchanged or not. The
reason for the exchange-value is to satisfy the minds of the parties involved in the exchange.
Hans: For you, reason is purpose, and exchange value is something psychological. Marx’s concept of exchange
value refers to a social effect, arising blindly and not following humand purposes.
Next Message by Chp is [264].
[519] Tuan: Use value is not the reason of the exchange value because it is depending on
how people use. In another word, it will depend on different use value to different people
because everyone of us is not the same. For ex: Money could be used as tool for helping
poor people or it can be used to make you happy. Although use value is depending on
people but it is the same because it is determined by consumer and time to take to produce
the commodity. Acording to Marx’s theory, the use value is performed by the consumer and
the exchange value is determined by the hours and skill level that generate the commodity
matching with a price that could sell in the market in capitalism.
Hans: For a complete answer you should also discuss Marx’s statement that the use value is the “carrier” of the
exchange value.
Next Message by Tuan is [520].
[767] Slrrjk: According to Marx, exchange value is determined by the value of a commodity
and not by its use value. The value of a commodity is what we can objectively
measure even though it fluctuates with time and location. The use value of a commodity
varies with each individual and this makes it, in my opinion, almost impossible for the exchange
value of a commodity to be determined strictly by its use value. If it were, each
commodity would have a different exchange value for each individual. On the other hand
when we analyze value as being the determining factor of exchange value we can see that
at any one point in time all exchange values will be constant for each individual within a
particular market. Although a commodity must contain use value in order for the labor that
is contained in it to be of value, the labor is what determines its value which is in turn expressed
in exchange value. Also Marx gives examples citing things that contain use value
but that contain no exchange value (air, virgin soil, natural meadows, etc.). So use value is
not the cause of exchange value, it is just the carrier of exchange value once abstract labor is
added to it (use value). Value is the constant and determining factor in exchange value.
Hans: Ok.
Next Message by Slrrjk is [881].
Question 48 is 56 in 1995ut, 60 in 1996sp, 58 in 1996ut, 65 in 1997sp, 347 in 1998WI,
348 in 1999SP, 441 in 2002fa, and 523 in 2007fa:
Question 48 In capitalism, products are produced using labor power. Therefore the value
of the products comes from the value of labor power, and the use value from the use value of
labor power. Right or wrong?
[150] Johny: I believe this to be true. If labor power is not put into a product then the value
of the product is not as valuable. When labor power is put into a product then it becomes
more valuable. If you have one pound of blank paper, the paper is not worth very much. But
if you have one pound of paper that has important things written in it, the paper becomes

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 85
more valuable because there was labor put into the paper. The value of products is definately
dependant on the labor power put into the product.
Hans: Here is your answer again with my comments:
I believe this to be true. If labor power is not put into a product then the value of the
product is not as valuable.
Hans: (1) Products are valuable, not their values.
When labor power is put into a product then it becomes more valuable.
Hans: (2) If I really wanted to be nitpicking I would correct you here again: you put labor into the product, not
labor power. You are using the correct formulation in the passage that follows:
If you have one pound of blank paper, the paper is not worth very much. But if you have
one pound of paper that has important things written in it, the paper becomes more valuable
because there was labor put into the paper.
Hans: (3) You are aware of course that the author gets only a small fraction of the price of the book. And that the
value of the book does not derive from the importance of the things written in it, but from the abstract labor going
into it.
The value of products is definitely dependant on the labor power put into the product.
Hans: (5) But not on the value of the labor power as I asked in the Question. When I was asking “Right or Wrong?”
I wanted you to be nitpicking with me too.
Next Message by Johny is [153].
[151] Braydon: I don’t believe capitalism bases their value of products on the amount
of labor that is involved in creating or producing a product. Their value of a product relies
on the supply and demand of the product and wether there is enough of the product to go
around. The less of the product available and the more people want it the more valuable it
becomes. Now, when we look at use value, there are many things that are useful to man that
do not require labor power, like the enjoymnet of nature. Labor power is not involved in this
and cannot be based on the use value of this product for man.
Hans: You apparently thought that this Question was asking whether Marx’s labor theory of value is right or
wrong. You did not catch that the above was not a correct rendering of Marx’s labor theory of value (which was
what I intended to ask: is the above a correct rendering of Marx’s theory?).
(datestring)Wed, 25 Jan 1995 16:57:36 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) What is exactly meant
by the use value of labor power? Is it the labor power that is involved with it making the
commodity a use value? If this is the case then, yes, it is true. From what I understand Marx
is dividing the labor into categories and each form has its own use. Am I even close? This
seems to be a struggle for me. Marxism is not easy to understand or adopt into a way of
thinking.
Hans: Marx distinguishes between labor and labor-power, i.e., the potential, ability to work. What the laborer sells
the capitalist is not his labor but the labor power. I.e, in capitalism, labor power is a commodity. And the labor is
the use value because of which the capitalist buys this commodity. In this sense it has become customary to speak
about labor being the use value of labor power.
But the part of the question which is more objectionable is that value comes from the value of labor power.
Value comes from labor, not from other value (which would be circular).
Next Message by Braydon is [155].
Question 49 Which aspects of the labor process are disregarded if it is called “useful labor”?
86 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
[145] Hippie: If something is to be called useful labor, many aspects of labor must be
disregarded. Useful labor must produce something with a tangible use value. Thus hours
spent studying for a test could not be considered useful labor because you didn’t produce
anything.
Hans: You are producing yourself as a more knowledgeable person.
Consider a musician: The only useful labor a musician performs is recording his music.
He can only get paid through the sale of records, tapes, and cd’s. All hours spent composing
are not useful labor, as the musician cannot sell a song that is in his head.
Hans: Now you are saying that only the very last phase in a very protacted production process is useful labor.
Next Message by Hippie is [252].
Question 50 is 59 in 1995ut, 66 in 1997WI, 75 in 1999SP, 79 in 2000fa, 79 in 2001fa, 88
in 2003fa, 99 in 2004fa, and 99 in 2005fa:
Question 50 Why did God create something as imperfect as nature and men? Compare
chapter 1 in Cohen’s Karl Marx’s Theory of History: A Defence.
[90] Sinbad: God created imperfect men and nature to allow for transformation. If the
world was in a perfect state at its moment of creation, there would be no reason to learn from
it or improve its existence. Mortal beings have the opportunity to participate in changing the
imperfect things in nature as well as themselves. This progression from imperfect to near
perfect gives us hope and goals to strive to achieve. Otherwise, in a perfect world, we would
merely exist, there would be no reason to change the state of matters.
Hans: I didn’t know you all would take this Question so literally.
Next Message by Sinbad is [279].
[155] Braydon: According to Marx our existence is immediate and we are in the process
of being “mediated”, or in the process of being transformed. It takes work to bring properties
of ourselves and the world to the surface. We are continually changing, developing
those hidden properties that make us different from everyone else. Through the process of
interacting with others properties are brought to the surface. God created us and nature this
way so we could develop our hidden properties and progress as human beings. As for nature,
well, I think in its own way it does the same thing. It develops and transforms through
earthquakes and other happenings of nature. What challenge would there be if we were all
perfect? Life would be pretty boring.
Hans: Excellent! Your choice of the earthquake-example seems to indicate that you are perhaps not quite convinced
about the pre-destined harmony which you are describing here.
Next Message by Braydon is [256].
[257] Rangers: If God really did create man, they would be immperfect for many reasons.
The one that should be noted for the question would be to separate the “good” form
the “bad”. Hegel states, “they exist because their properties need an arena to express themselves”.
God would then use the arena to judge individuals by how they react or act in this
imperfect world.
Hans: Excellent! You are the only one who understood why I asked this Question at this place of the Annotations.
Marx I feel doesn’t believe in creationism, therefore since we were not “produced by
God” we are not perfect.
Next Message by Rangers is [258].

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 87
[264] Chp: Since there is no answer to ask God to verify a correct answer, there is no
answer to this question. The question itself assumes nature and man are imperfect to begin
with. I will argue that in God’s eyes nature and man are perfect.
Hans: I take it you do not want to be critical of God. Instead of saying that God thinks mature and man are perfect,
another possibility would be to say that the imperfection of the world is not a flaw; God had certain good purposes
in mind when he created it.
Next Message by Chp is [265].
Question 51 is 61 in 1995ut, 63 in 1996ut, 71 in 1997sp, 66 in 1997ut, 92 in 2003fa,
103 in 2004fa, 118 in 2007fa, 118 in 2008fa, 126 in 2010fa, 146 in 2011fa, and 145 in
2012fa:
Question 51 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?
[78] Frosty: “Useful labour” is used to describe labor whose utility is represented by the
use-value of its product.
Hans: It is not a special kind of labor; it is one of the aspects which every labor has.
When two goods are qualitatively different, they also have different forms of useful labor.
It is necessary for the exchange of commodities that they contain qualitatively different kinds
of useful labor because if they didn’t, they could not confront each other as commodities.
Hans: Why don’t you just say: then people would have no motivation to exchange them with each other? (Indeed,
reading ahead I am just noticing that you are going to say that.)
The whole idea of exchange is to satisfy individual wants and needs.
Hans: No. Marx tries to argue that this is not so.
If you already have one commodity, why would you exchange that commodity for another
with the same use-value. There is no sense in such an exchange. The whole idea of an
exchange is so you can obtain something else you want and do not have already.
Hans: The motivations of the individuals in society are not the same as the purposes of what they are doing.
The differences in use-value and useful labor reflects the social division of labor. If these
laborers were brought together to perform identical tasks, the qualitative differences would
not exist.
Hans: Good work. You are trying to sort things out, and I think as the class goes on you will learn some of the
conceptual tools to do it rationally.
Next Message by Frosty is [236].
[119] Ghant: a. There is no reason for exchange between people who each have essentially
the same thing to trade. Exchange becomes useful and necessary when the use qualities
of commodities are substantially different. An example: One man is a farmer, another is a
builder. The farmer needs a house, the builder needs to eat. Their labor is qualitatively different,
so the commodities they produce are complementary. Two farmers producing the same
produce would have no incentive to enter into an exchange agreement, and neither would
two builders. b. Marx says no. He believes that since each different and diverse commodity
88 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
requires an equally diverse array of useful labor [skills]. c. Marx says yes. He cites a primitive
community where there is presumably a social understanding of communal property.
d. Marx believes that commodity production necessarily causes the division of labor. As
the skills to produce a varied array of commodities diverge, labor gravitates toward social
divisions.
Hans: And, to add to point d., commodity exchange tends to make products more varied.
Very good. These are the correct answers.
Next Message by Ghant is [120].
[238] Deadhead: a. People exchange commodities because they both have different use
values. No one would exchange one quarter for another equal quarter. Nothing is gained.
The same is true for the labor involved in producing the commodity. If the useful labor
involved in producing two commodity was the same there would be no purpose for exchange
and the two parties would produce the commodity themselves instead of exchanging.
Hans: good.
b. Commodity production can exist without the division of labor. Not all commodities
are produced through mass assembly line production. Many products are produced from
raw material to final product by the work of one individual. Example, tailors, shoemakers,
carpenters, etc.
Hans: I was thinking about division of labor in society at large, not at that inside a firm.
c. Division of labor can exist without the production of a commodity. For example, when
building a road it is done in several stages often assigned to different groups or divisions of
labor. The final product (road) would not be considered a commodity though because it is
neither bought, nor sold, or exchanged for another commodity.
Hans: I meant to ask: is a social division of labor possible without the products being produced as commodities?
d. In order to produce a commodity efficiently and of good quality, certain individuals
may be responsible for certain parts of production. By dividing the tasks, this allows for
specialization, therefore each level of production can be preformed more quickly and with
higher quality by the more concentrated efforts of skilled employees.
Hans: Yes, this is one part of it. But commodity production also deepens the social division of labor between the
different industries.
Next Message by Deadhead is [239].
[510] Sms: a. The exchange of commodities containing qualitatively different kinds of
useful labor is necessary due to a comparative advantage, as explained by Ricardian Theory.
Ricardo stated that a country which has a comparative advantage in producing clothing will
exchange with a country who has a comparative advantage in producing wine, instead of
trying to produce both commodities within the country.–(or something to that effect). Similarly,
people, companies, cities, and states will exchange commodities containing qualitatively
different kinds of useful labor rather than spend all of their time attempting to produce
everything that they need.
Hans: Your first sentence was: The exchange of commodities containing qualitatively different kinds of useful
labor is necessary due to a comparative advantage, as explained by Ricardian Theory. The question was not why
commodity exchange was necessary, but why commodities must contain qualitatively different kinds of useful
labor in order to be exchanged. I.e. I was not asking whether or not commodity exchange, but I was assuming that
we already had commodity exchange, and was asking why this commodity exchange was dependent on a certain
condition (namely a system of division of labor). Please be careful with your logic, don’t turn things around. This

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 89
is the whole purpose of this class, to figure out what comes first and how the different steps hang together. (By the
way, the answer to part a. of this question is really trivial.)
(datestring)Mon, 6 Feb 1995 16:02:41 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) On p. 132 Marx states:
“Coats cannot be exchanged for coats. One use-value cannot be exchanged for another of
the same kind” In other words 20 yards of linen=20 yards of linen. Dr. Ehrbar: Is this what
you meant by stating that section “a” is trivial?
Hans: Yes. Perhaps there is one step in there which Marx does not make explicit. After “coats cannot be exchanged
for coats,” Marx says: “were these two objects not the products of useful labor of different quality, they could not
face each other as commodities.” I wonder if this switch from the use values to the labors producing them has the
following reason: If the use values are different but the labor producing them very similar, then they still woudn’t
face each other as commodities, since the same producer could easily make them. But this is an additional subtlety
I’ve been wondering about. What you wrote is what I meant when I wrote the answer was “trivial”. Now back to
your original posting:
b. Commodity production cannot exist without division of labor. I have tried to think
of an exception–such as the native Indians who would create pottery and art-work from the
land. Even in primitive cultures there was a division of labor.
Hans: They had division of labor but not commodity production. Commodity production is the production for the
exchange!
c. Division of labor can exist without commodity production in areas such as services.
Hans: You think commodities are things, consumer goods or whatever, and services are not commodities. In
Marx’s definition, commodities are things (material or immaterial, i.e., they include services) which are produced
for the market.
(datestring)Mon, 6 Feb 1995 16:02:41 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) b. Division of labor is a
necessary condition for commodity production, although the converse does not hold. So in
answer to c... c. No
Hans: Yes, this is how I wanted this Question to be answered.
d. Commodity production influences the division of labor by creating a pyramid of skills.
The talented and experienced workers will perform tasks requiring the most skill or experience.
Adam Smith described a division of labor in the pencil factory. (Dr. Ehrbar: I
would think that effective, or at least efficient division of labor would require a boss or a
foreman who had incentives, such as a bottom-line–like what Adam Smith described. The
boss would place the most effective and skillful workers in their proper position. If there is
no bottom-line driven managers to produce efficency in the determination of the division of
labor, how will the workers that have the most skill find their niche?)
Hans: I do not want to argue with you right now whether capitalism or socialism is better, but let’s first get the
simple logic straight. With the definition of commodities I just gave you, I’d like you to find an additional force or
tencency, which, along with the technology-driven tendency you just described, also works towards deepening and
widening the division of labor.
(datestring)Mon, 6 Feb 1995 16:02:41 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) There is no division of
labor when a man carves a statue from wood which he finds on the forest floor. (A man who
weaves and tailors).
Hans: Sorry, I don’t get the connection, and whatever you mean, I am quite sure you don’t mean the answer I was
looking for. Try this one again.
Now here is what I wrote in response to your first submission:
Sorry if I seem to be nitpicking here. But we are reading a difficult philosophical text, and whether or not you
believe that Marx was right, we have to bring up the patience to go through the argument as he lays is out.
90 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
(datestring)Sat, 4 Feb 1995 21:56:04 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) My question in part d of
my answer was not intended to promote an argument with you on socialism–but rather a
question I thought perhaps you could answer for me, as a parallel thought. I will think about
your remarks to my answer, and write back to you in the morning.
Hans: Yes you do have many parallel thoughts. This and your previous submissions show that you like to take
the Question at hand as a starting point for interesting little “tangents”. What you are writing there has merits and
shows an inquisitive and open mind. I do therefore not want to discourage you from spinning on these threads. If
you wanted to post the above question about the need of supervisors to the list as a whole, perhaps this will spark a
fruitful discussion.
But right now I think these tangents get into your way. You are under a double pressure right now. On the one
hand, you have to “make up” a number of Questions and make a good impression. On the other hand it seems to
me that you are taking the material you are working through as a challenge to re-examine some of your previous
conceptions. I give you credit for your willingness to do this, especially since I know how unpleasant this can be. If
things get too bad, your brain comes to the rescue and offers some irresistible sparkling ideas just to give you relief.
Perhaps this means it is time to take a break, but afterwards I want you to come back to the material at hand, which
you need to understand better. This is why I refused to discuss this particular topic with you right now, despite the
fact that this topic is certainly relevant for the class material.
(datestring)Mon, 6 Feb 1995 16:25:05 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) Dr. Ehrbar: I hope this
is not a tangent. My question is about p. 133. “Use values like coats, linen, etc, in short
the physical bodies of commodities are combinations of two elements, the material provided
by nature and labor. If we substract the total amount of useful labor of different kinds
which is contained in the coat, the linen, etc., am aterial substratum is always left. This
substratum is furnished by nature whithout human intervention.” You stated in one of my
previous responses that Marx regards services as commodities. What would Marx state the
substratum of services such as legislative process? What does he mean by substratum?
Hans: I agree, this is not a tangent. You bring here evidence which makes what I wrote earlier seem false. Of
course this has to be clarified. This is not a tangent and I am glad you are bringing it up. “Substratum” is the latin
word for carrier or bearer which Marx uses elsewhere. One might say, if you have a service you need the presence
of the worker who performs this service, some kind of connection with him (as you and I have it now through the
Internet) as a material carrier for the use value. There is one important difference between services and material
commodities: services cannot be accumulated and hoarded in a safe. With services, the producer and consumer
are not as isolated from each othere. My conjecture is: if the preponderance of use values which people need were
services (and indeed the trend is going in this direction) then capitalism would not be possible. Marx concentrates
on the material commodities because they are the quintessential commodites which lead to capitalism.
(datestring)Wed, 8 Feb 1995 14:20:48 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) Dr. Ehrbar: I hope that
I am not beating this to death— in response to d... d. Perhaps the commodity production
itself creates a division of labor by the specialization of workers.
Hans: Yes, by this, and also by something else: by the tendency to invent new use values or differentiate old ones
in order to get a niche in the market.
Next Message by Sms is [544].
Question 54 is 63 in 1995ut, 67 in 1996sp, 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:
Question 54 Is labor the only source of use value? of value? (“Value” is here the property
which makes things exchangeable.)
[97] Sprewell: No, labor is not the only source of use value. Nature also provides a certain
amount of use value. It does this by providing the raw materials from which commodities are

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 91
produced. Labor provides the majority of use value by changing the form of natural matter,
but not all of it. Labor, on the other hand, is the only source of value. Natural materials such
as air, soil, natural meadows, etc. all have utility to man, but that utility does not come from
labor. They are use values but not values. They become values when their form is changed
through labor.
Hans: Ok.
Next Message by Sprewell is [98].
[112] Alex: Labor is not the only source of use value. Although labor does count as a
source of use value it is not the only source. The quote from William Petty best describes
this, “Labor is its (use-value’s) father and the earth its (use-value’s) mother.” So we can see
that labor is not the only source of use value,
Hans: I follow you and agree with you up to here. Regarding that what comes after this, not only is it in disagreement
with what Marx would say, but I also do not understand your argument. Please elaborate.
and that if the earth is the “mother” of use value then there is some inherent value that
is also a source of use value. And if labor is not the only source of use value then labor
is, likewise, not the only source of value (value=property which makes things exchangable).
Rather, labor and the earth, are sources of value.
(datestring)Wed, 25 Jan 1995 17:39:59 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) In the sentences following
your comments, I was just basically trying to say that since labor is not the one and only
source of use value, then likewise labor is not the one and only source of value.
Hans: In other words, you think that use value is what makes things exchangeable. Use value is a condition for the
exchange (i.e., things must have use value to be exchangeable), but it does not make things exchangeable. There
are useful things which cannot be exchanged.
(datestring)Wed, 15 Mar 1995 21:51:02 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) Labor is not the only
source of use value, nature provides a certain amount of use value. The contribution from
nature to use value is in the form of raw materials wich are then converted to value through
labor. It might be said then that labor is the only source of value. Use values become values
through the use of labor.
Hans: The concepts of value and use value are much more separated than you seem to think.
Next Message by Alex is [113].
[120] Ghant: No, labor is not the only source of (datestring)exchange(/datestring) value.
Two examples follow: The value of a shirt is related not only to its workmanship, but also
to the quality of cotton the shirt is made of.
Hans: When an advertiser nowadays says “this product has value” then the meaning is: “this product has been
crafted carefully from the finest ingredients.” Marx’s labor theory of value uses the term “value” in a quite different
meaning. The value of a shirt comes from the direct labor (not workmanship, i.e., not the care and skills of the
worker, but abstract labor!) plus the indirect labor (i.e., the labor going into the materials and machinery – which is
again something different from the quality of these materials).
The value of a diamond is closely related to qualtities that labor has no control over, such
as cut, clarity, and color. Though the average price of diamonds are high, it requires the
same effort to mine an industrial diamond as it does to mine an investment quality stone.
Hans: Here you have a case of “joint production.” The same process produces industrial diamonds also produces
a small proportion of “investment quality” stones. The labor theory of value says here, roughly (disregarding the
equalization of profits and the rent going to the mine owner) that the sum of the prices of industrial and investment
diamonds is determined by the labor going into mining.
Next Message by Ghant is [211].
92 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
[153] Johny: No, labor is not the only source of use value. Labor is only the work put
into a product. Where did the product come from? The initial product came from nature. If
nature did not exist there would be no labor. How would you fix a car if there was no car
to fix? There are also things in nature that do not need to have labor put into them. Such as
trees, lakes, gold, silver, and many other things have value even if there is no work put into
them.
Hans: This is right. Now what about value?
Apropos your sentence “The initial product came from nature”: strictly speaking one would have to say that
production has as inputs labor, nature, and pre-existing products.
Next Message by Johny is [353].
[157] Ida: No, labor is not the only source of use value. People use items and need items
that come from nature as well as human labor. An item such as wood for heat which comes
from trees from nature.
Hans: Ok, there are use values which can be consumed as they are provided by nature without any labor or with a
negligible amount of labor (fire wood) in some areas. This is one aspect of the Question, but not all of it.
Wood is not man made obviously so it doesn’t rely on human labor to be produced.
However, it does rely on human labor to be put to use, ie cutting and selling to consumers if
necessary.
Hans: You are saying “obviously” but here you are getting yourself into trouble. The table in front of you is wood.
Does it mean it is made by nature? What you call “putting nature to use” is what usually is called “production.”
Compare Marx’s footnote 13, in the Annotations right after Question 55, and Marx’s passage coming after Question
126 and my comments about it.
Other items from nature may be food, water, air, and even human labor itself is from
nature.
Hans: Now you slipped again, and this time you did not recover. The argument that everything is natural because
we are all natural beings is called “reductionism.” It ignores that what matters is not the material we are made
of, but the laws which we obey. And societies do not obey the laws of physics (or genetics as the sociobiologists
believe).
Next Message by Ida is [316].
[160] Eddie: Labor is not the only source of wealth. As Marx explains nature is also a
form of wealth. Nature however, does not need to be produced. Companies frequently use
raw materials which need no production for their use as a commodity.
Hans: Nature is not only a form of wealth itself, it is also a necessary ingredient in any production of produced
wealth.
Now how about value?
(datestring)Wed, 25 Jan 1995 14:24:26 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) Value can be attained
in objects that become a value socially. Marx uses the examples of air, virgin soil, natural
meadows, unplanted forests, etc. It would seem to me that society can create a use value in
objects that can become valueable but may not be valueable right now. These are valueable
objects but will not become commodities until they are transfered to someone else.
Hans: You seem to consider something valuable if society considers it useful (or perhaps useful for commerce).
This is not Marx’s concept of value.
(datestring)Wed, 8 Mar 1995 12:19:16 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) Labor is the only source
of value. By it’s definition labor itself makes something valueable.
Hans: You still do not seem to know what Marx’s concept of value is.
Next Message by Eddie is [320].

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 93
[165] Asmith: Some objects which are freely available, that don’t require labor to produce
such as air, unplanted natural forests, and other naturally occurring raw materials have usevalue.
However, in order for raw materials to be a commodity it must have labor added.
Otherwise it may have use-value, but since it is freely available (with no labor required), it
has no exchange-value. If the thing is freely available, why exchange? Although labor is not
necessary to create use-value, labor is required to create exchange-value.
Hans: That is one aspect of the question. Another aspect is: does labor alone create use values or value, or can it
do so only in conjunction with other inputs?
(datestring)Wed, 25 Jan 1995 17:19:11 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) asmith further answers:
It seems to me that it is digging pretty deep to find this “aspect” of the question in the original
question. Maybe you are providing food for additional thought. Whichever the case, I will
give it a whirl.
Hans: No, I am not digging deep. I am just insisting that you answer Question 54 and not Question 54a which
reads: Do all use value have labor in it? Do all values have labor in it?
Services can be an example of creating exchange value with labor only. Whether or
not services can be considered commodities is a mystery to me. It has the appearance of
a commodity only without the physical characteristics. Services definitely have use value,
even when it doesn’t involve repairing or enhancing some physical object (like counselling
or legal advice).
Hans: Many services need very sophisticated means of production, they are not just labor.
Exchange value all boiles down to labor added. Whether or not there are other imputs
does not to me effect the exchange value other than when the other imputs have labor already
added to that good e.g. intermediate goods added to produce a finished good.
Hans: Ok. In your answer you also implied, correctly, that labor is not the only source of use value.
Next Message by Asmith is [166].
[172] Nena: According to Marx’s argument, labor is not the only source of use value.
Both matter and labor are the sources of use-value. Besides the existence of the labor, there
is a material fundation, which is supplied (provided) by the nature without the help of man,
existing in the combination of use-value. And it (the material fundation) can only work by
changing the forms of matter. And also, in the production man can only change the forms of
matter as doing by the nature, and be constantly helped by natural. So, it conclude that labor
is not the only source of use value.
Hans: Good. This is a complete answer to the use value part of the Question. What about the value part?
Next Message by Nena is [332].
[258] Rangers: Labor is not the only source of use value? Tangible items or goods do not
have to be created by man in order to be considered valuable for exchange. For example,
things coming form nature, such as a water well have value. Indeed the water is needed and
can be exchanged for another good. Another example is wood on one land, the trees can be
cut and used for firewood, or can be saved for beauty. Regardless, the wood has some value
(intrinsic, or abstract).
Hans: Production is not creation anyway, it is transformation. And water certainly has to go through some transformation
(“treatment”) and transportation process before it comes out of the faucet.
You are also working with the wrong concept of value!
(datestring)Mon, 30 Jan 1995 17:34:41 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) I’m sorry, I do not understand
what you mean on the concept of value. Please explain.
94 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
Hans: You said useful things are usually considered valuable for exchange. I.e., you consider value a subjective
attidude. When Marx talks aboput value in his book, he means something different,
Value is then anything which makes an item exchangable?
Hans: No, the value of a thing is a social property of the thing, i.e., a property it has been given by society at
large, not just by a given individual. It manifests itself in the thing being exchangeable. The thing is exchangeable
because it is the product of labor, i.e. labor is the substance of value.
Next Message by Rangers is [259].
[297] Marinda: Labor is not the the only source of use value, because labor can do
nothing without materials. Only a material thing can have use-value. Marx says that labor
changes the forms of matter. Therefore, labor can change something which has the use-value
of firewood into something with the use-value of a chair. A particular kind of (or “quality”)
of labor results in a particular use-value, but materials are also required. (I won’t extend
this into a discussion of services rather than physical commodities, I’m not sure how that
would work.) But labor is the only source of “value” as Marx defines it. That property
which makes firewood exchangeable is the labor time that somebody spent hauling it to the
city and cutting it up. I could spend time growing vegetables and make an exchange, or
spend my time going to the woods to cut wood myself. I’ll end up with the same use-value
(which required both materials and labor) but it is the labor alone which makes firewood
exchangeable in a way that trees on public land are not.
Hans: Ok.
Next Message by Marinda is [314].
[395] Makarios: Labor is not the only source of use value. As pointed out by Marx
133:2/o Use-values like coats, linen, etc., in short, the physical bodies of commodities, are
combinations of two elements, the material provided by nature, and labour. Raw materials
have a use-value before they are ever touched by human hands, and this innate use-value
is provided by nature. Labor only alters the form of materials. Value (taken here as the
exchange value), on the other hand, is a direct result of labor. Value, according to Marx,
is the embodiment of the quantity of “simple labor” expended to produce or obtain the
commodity in question.
Hans: Ok.
Next Message by Makarios is [397].
[522] Tuan: According to Marx’s argument, labor is not the only source of use value
because labor is work to make to product. Beside, product come from nature. If nature does
not exist, labor is not useful. In fact there are something in nature that do not need labor
such as tree, lake, mountain, water, diamond, gold, mine and etc. They are value that do not
need labor work.
Hans: Which definition of “value” are you using here?
Next Message by Tuan is [562].
[570] Golfer: Labor is not the only source of a use value, becaues labor without resources
is nothing. Labor is a nessasary part of a use value. However, a commodity also requires
resources. One without the other has on use value.
Hans: Yes. And how about value?
Next Message by Golfer is [573].

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 95
[571] Pegasus: Labor is not the only source of use value. According to Marx, use value is
composed of two elements matter and labor. Matter is what is “furnished by nature without
the help of man” (your annotations, p. 33). Natural forces helps man in his labor.
Hans: Again, as in your answer [175]., you should not just recite what the notes say, but give the reasoning. And
you did not answer the second part of the question at all.
Finally, a thought that hit me while I was reading: In the annotations you state that in a
capitalist society “everyone has to meet some minimum standard, everyone has to be like
the average, which means however also that exceptional contributions cannot be recognized”
(your annotations, p. 26). Therefore, a goal for socialist society must be to recognize individual
contributions. Capitalist society does not take into account the fact that some commodities
require more labor than others (art for instance). I do not think that this is right. In
my opinion capitalist society recognizes individual achievement to a great degree (although
it could do it more).
Hans: It only rewards certain achievements and not others. If we want to be rewarded, we have to become MBA’s
instead of studying art or doing whatever we want to do (even if there is a social need for it). The equalization of
labor, the fact that all labors count equal and compete with each other, precludes the unique contributions, those
which cannot be compared with simple unskilled labor, from being recognized.
Next Message by Pegasus is [654].
Question 55 is 66 in 1996ut, 69 in 1997ut, 86 in 2000fa, 93 in 2002fa, 121 in 2007SP,
127 in 2008SP, and 125 in 2008fa:
Question 55 What are the implications of the false assertion that labor is the only source
of use values?
[94] Ann: Yes it is a false assertion to say that “labor is the only source of use values.”
There is a variety of human life on this earth and therefore many different ways of viewing
society. Obtaining material wealth is not a main issue for many people. Environmentalists
and “nature lovers” would view the wealth they receive from nature as their top use value
and not the wealth they receive from labor.
Hans: You are taking things too much for granted. Without labor, present or past, we would be roaming the jungle.
Personally, there are a variety of things that I would consider as use values. The use
values I receive from friends, relatives, and activities are far greater than what I receive from
the wealth obtained by the labor I have produced. But, in contrast I am a college student
and I receive most of my wealth through my parents. My use values will change when I am
obtaining all of my wealth through labor I produce myself.
Hans: Actually the question ws already assuming that it is understood that labor is not the only source of use
values, but that, as Marx says in the readings, labor is its father and nature its mother. But some radical Union
types say: we workers re producing all the wealth. Marx disagrees and he says that this is a slogan which backfires.
How?
Next Message by Ann is [200].
[184] Vida: The false assertion that labor is the only source of use values implies one of
two things, either the material makeup does not exist, or that man, through his labor, is the
sole creator of the material that is manipulated into a use value. (Conceding the obvious, that
matter does exist, I will avoid a discussion of its actuality.) In essence, the assertion ignores
the presence of “nature-given materials” and credits man with the creation of matter. If one
96 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
ignores the existence of materials furnished by nature, then they have placed man, through
his labor, as the creator of the matter around him.
Hans: Yes, these are the scientific implications. To be honest, I intended to ask for the political implications
(although this may not be obvious from reading the question).
Next Message by Vida is [215].
Question 57 is 66 in 1995ut, 70 in 1996sp, 75 in 1997WI, 84 in 1999SP, 89 in 2001fa, 99
in 2003fa, 139 in 2010fa, 159 in 2011fa, and 158 in 2012fa:
Question 57 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.
[98] Sprewell: Abstract human labor is the productive expenditure of human brains,
nerves, and muscles. It is the basic characteristics that all labor has in common when reduced
to a point where it can be compared and contrasted.
Hans: Exactly.
Next Message by Sprewell is [101].
[121] Ranger: Abstract labor is the expenditure of human labor. Abstract labor is not the
individual qualities or skills of a laborer but simply the fact that the laborer fills a position.
The daily grind of work is abstract labor.
Hans: Yes. Or say it the other way round: since our economy is “organized” around abstract labor, work has
become such a grind.
Next Message by Ranger is [123].
[131] Titania: abstract human labor is a “productive expenditure of h u m a n brains,
nerves and muscles.”
Hans: So far it is right.
the theoretical ability for an individual to produce.
Hans: This is labor power. Abstract labor is the expenditure of this labor power.
Message [131] referenced by [126]. Next Message by Titania is [132].
[171] Tsunami: Abstract human labor is the expenditure of human brain, muscles, nerves,
sense of organs, in the labor process.
Hans: Yes.
Next Message by Tsunami is [284].
[243] Deadhead: Abstract human labor is simply the use of human knowledge, strength
and physical activity used to produce something of need, no matter what the particular final
product is. All forms of production must contain this simple use of “abstract labor” even
though the results of this “abstract labor” may be completely different products.
Hans: Yes.
Next Message by Deadhead is [244].
[375] Eagle: It is the brains, nerves, and muscles the human uses to produce his labor.
These are abstract because they aren’t thought of when discussing labor.
Hans: They are called abstract because abstraction is made of the question how these brains, nerves, muscles were
used – it only counts that they were used.
Next Message by Eagle is [376].
[701] Cmanson: Abstract labor is the actual labor (movements and thought processes) of
the worker not the thing produced but the act of producing it.
Hans: Not quite right. It is only one aspect of the act of producing the good. Which aspect?

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 97
(datestring)Wed, 1 Mar 1995 21:24:30 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) Astract labor involves
the use of brains, nerves and muscles. If abstract labor was to be broken down to its purist
form it would have clear common comparable features.
Hans: Does concrete labor not involve the use of brains, nerves, and muscles?
(datestring)Sun, 12 Mar 1995 21:22:51 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) I guess the terms you
are looking for are the use of human knowledge, strength and physical activity to produce
something of need regardless of what is produced.
Hans: You are getting closer. Instead of saying: the use of brain etc. to produce whatever, I would rather say: it is
the use of brain etc. involved in any labor process. But perhaps we mean the same thing.
Next Message by Cmanson is [702].
[911] Marlin: Abstract human labor- actual expenditure of human labor. It is not the
human resources one possess but rather the act of using the in the production process.
Hans: Kind of right, I think, but I’d like you to formulate it even better.
(datestring)Thu, 2 Mar 1995 10:58:29 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) Abstract human labor
implies production. It is the use of human resources in production.
Hans: Yes. Instead “it implies production” you may say: It is the production process seen under the aspect that the
production process is a use of human resources.
Next Message by Marlin is [912].
Question 58 is 67 in 1995ut, 70 in 1996ut, 76 in 1997WI, 78 in 1997sp, and 73 in 1997ut:
Question 58 Did abstract human labor exist already before commodity production?
[101] Sprewell: Yes, abstract human labor existed before commodity production. Abstract
human labor was defined as the productive expenditure of human brains, nerves, and
muscles. Before commodity production this type of labor was used by man to provide a
subsistence for themselves. Hunting, farming, gathering food, and building shelter all used
brains, nerves, and muscles, but since it was produced for ones own consumption and not
for exchange it is not considered a commodity.
Hans: Ok. This seems so simple, yet many Marxists strongly disagree with that.
Next Message by Sprewell is [271].
[244] Deadhead: Abstract human labor has been in existence as long as man himself.
Man has used this labor to build shelter, gather food, hunt and fish, and protect himself
in order to survive for thousands of years, before anyone ever thought of producing goods
(commodities) that could be bought, sold, or traded for other commodities.
Hans: Good.
Next Message by Deadhead is [325].
[376] Eagle: Yes. Humans have had to use these just to survive on their own, be it farming,
hunting, or gathering food. They became useful in commodity production later.
Hans: They did not survive on their own. They always belonged to tribes etc.
(datestring)Tue, 7 Feb 1995 20:53:36 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) But they still had to do
these things even as a member of the tribe in order to survive. The tribe wouldn’t survive
without each member contributing their labor to each other.
Hans: I did not object to that part of your answer. I agree with it. I just didn’t want you to look at pre-historic man
as a bunch of Robinsons.
Next Message by Eagle is [377].
98 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
[912] Marlin: Man has always possessed haman resources, therefore abstract labor has
always existed, as long as man has anyway. Man has used abstract labor to build weapons,
shelter, hunt for and kill food, etc. This was not brought around for the sole use of commodity
production.
Hans: Still your formulation is not quite sharp enough. What is the difference between your sentence “Man has
used abstract labor to build weapons, shelter, hunt for and kill food, etc.” and the sentence “Man has used concrete
labor to build weapons, shelter, hunt for and kill food, etc.”?
(datestring)Thu, 2 Mar 1995 11:06:53 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) What do you mean by
concrete labor? I think you are trying to differentiate between two levels of labor. If I am
correct, absract labor refers to skills of my fovorite term, resources, which are naturally
instilled in humans. Concrete labor meaning skilled labor? A commodity market or, means
of production is not required for the former. It comes naturally, or instinctly to humans.
Hans: Yes. The concepts of abstract and concrete (i.e., useful) labor are both explained in Marx. They are both
aspects of the labor process. Any labor process has these aspects, whether or not it is production of commodities.
But in commodity production the distinction between abstract and concrete labor becomes especially important,
because the abstract labor produces value and the concrete labor use value.
Next Message by Marlin is [913].
Question 59 is 68 in 1995ut, 72 in 1996sp, 71 in 1996ut, 77 in 1997WI, 79 in 1997sp, 74
in 1997ut, 80 in 1998WI, 86 in 1999SP, 98 in 2002fa, 114 in 2004fa, 115 in 2005fa, 128
in 2007SP, 132 in 2008fa, 141 in 2010fa, 161 in 2011fa, and 160 in 2012fa:
Question 59 What is the difference between labor and labor-power?
[87] Ann: When talking of labor or measuring labor you are speaking in terms of numbers
of employees working in a corporation or many corporations. You are not speaking of
what is being produced or how much. When you are speaking of labor-power you start to
bring in numbers of goods and quantities of goods being produced from the labor in that
coorporation.
Hans: Did you read the assigned passage in Marx or my Annotations?
Next Message by Ann is [88].
[174] Stxian: Labor-power is different from labor because labor-power itself represented
a whole social class and it seems to me that labor-power is dependent on the livelihood of
labor. Labor-power can affect production structure and the whole social system. Where
individual labor can not. Labor distinguishes itself in different form of occupation, but labor
power does not, whether you are sewing or producing something, you have different labor
power existing in the same person.
Hans: Labor power is not the same as labor force or the class of wage laborers. Your last sentence is a true and
very important statement about labor power.
Next Message by Stxian is [331].
[209] Telemark: Question 59: Labor is the matter-of-fact production process at work
using human power to produce commodities that have a use value and hence are able to
be consumed because of the commodities existence. It is from the labor time spent which
is socially necessary that determines the actual value of that particular commodity. Laborpower
on the other hand is the ability of human power to produce commodities from the
knowledge, skill, training and craftsmanship within ones own mind, hands, feet etc. It is

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 99
the potential to produce a product if this skilled laborer were to indeed start labor on a
commodity or commodities.
Hans: Exactly.
Next Message by Telemark is [210].
[265] Chp: Labor is not simply work, while labor-power is work that has value. For
instance, a man can labor all day making little rocks out of big rocks, but if nobody has use
for little rocks there is no labor power.
Hans: Did you read the assigned readings?
Next Message by Chp is [342].
[344] Stalin: Labor is the actual work done to produce a commodity. Labor includes
all the factors needed to produce the commodity. Labor-power is the potential labor which
needs more developement to produce a commodity. Factors for labor-power might include
education and training.
Hans: The ability to work (or potential labor) which does not need more development is called labor power as
well.
Next Message by Stalin is [475].
[377] Eagle: Labor is the actual work that goes into producing a commodity. Labor-power
is the potential labor that could be used in producing a commodity and is usually a higher
value than labor.
Hans: Do you mean higher use value than labor? Not really. The laborer has to sell his labor power only because
he or she does not have access to the means of production. If they did, they would work for themselves and get the
full reward for their labor, instead of only the wage. For them, labor power has a lower use value than labor would
have.
Next Message by Eagle is [378].
[520] Tuan: Basically, Labor is about production’s process to produce commodities work
by using human power. It is determined by time labor spent on the actual value of comodities.
On the other hand, labor-power is the ability of human power to produce commodities
based on intelligent, knowledge, skill and training.
Hans: Ok.
Next Message by Tuan is [521].
[913] Marlin: Labor is the act of using human resources in the production process. This
means using human power to produce consumable products for market. Labor power is the
ability to produce using abstract labor or human resources. It entails our potential to produce
a commodity, not the act of production.
Hans: Yes, this is right.
Next Message by Marlin is [921].
Question 60 is 69 in 1995ut, 72 in 1996ut, and 80 in 1997sp:
Question 60 What is simple unskilled labor? What are the qualitative differences of the
various labor powers reduced to in a commodity-producing economy?
[287] Ledzep: Simple unskilled labor is labor that anyone, who is physically able, can
perform without formal training. It seems that Marx makes no difference between skilled
and unskilled labor qualitatively. However, differences arise when speaking quantitatively.
Hans: Yes, this is the point. But instead of “Marx” you should say “the market (in Marx’s view)”. The market
cannot make qualitative differences. Let me explain a little better what this means because it is easily misunderstood.
Of course the market can recognize, to a certain degree, qualitative differences in the goods. This is not what
100 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
I mean. i mean: the only recognition which the market can give, to qualitatively better products, to labor which is
such that nobody else can do it, etc., is giving more money, i.e., the recognition is always a quantitative one. This
is very one-dimensional. That is why Marx says here: qualitative differences between different labors are reduced
to merely quantitative differences.
Next Message by Ledzep is [288].
Question 61 is 70 in 1995ut, 74 in 1996sp, 73 in 1996ut, 81 in 1998WI, 88 in 1999SP, 93
in 2000fa, 93 in 2001fa, and 117 in 2005fa:
Question 61 Does skilled labor produce more value per hour than unskilled labor? Explain!
[74] Darci: If one looks at value as the reflection of amount of labor, skilled labor and
unskilled labor value can only be measured by the amount of time spent in production. If
viewed only from this perspective then the answer to the question is it depends on the individual.
The laborer who spends the most time producing has more value and skill level is
inconsequential. If one believes value is exchange value then a skilled laborer’s hours (i.e.
computer programmer) would be of more value to a business firm who relies on computers
for their production than the janitor who cleans the building, because the product is dependent
on a specific skill and not on a clean work area. Both have their place and it would
be difficult to work in a filthy environment, but production levels do not cease because of
garbage but work does cease if the computer cannot function or programs to perform business
tasks are not written. So the answer to this question is it depends.
Hans: Marx, in the assigned readings, purports to derive that exchange value comes from labor, and then goes on
to reason that in its value-creating capacity all labor is equal. You are coming to a different conclusion. You say
that skilled laborers contribute more to exchange value than unskilled laborers. Did you just prove Marx wrong?
(datestring)Sun, 22 Jan 95 19:57:42 MST(/datestring) My answer was trying to discover
if there is a way to determine if skilled labor is more valuable than unskilled – my intention
was to explore the possibility that labor-value is socially unequal depending on the exchange
value and urgency of the need. Am I getting close?
Hans: You mean, that someone who produces something that is in need, or someone who has high skills, produces
more value?
These are two different questions. First look at the urgency of the need, i.e., take someone who produces
something which has a high exchange value because everybody wants it. Does this mean he is also producing
more value? I would argue no. Determining value by exchange value is putting the cart in front of the horse. The
producer of the good that is in demand gets more money not because he creates more value but because there is a
flow of value from elsewhere in society to him.
Here is why. Something has value because it represents a piece of the labor power available to society. The total
labor power is still the same as before this producer hit the goldmine of offering something that sells like crazy.
Therefore the sum of values is also the same. In the long run, other producers will jump in and produce the same
commodity, until supply has caught up with demand. Then the market prices will again gravitate around the actual
values.
This depends on the assumption that the supplier we speak of uses “abstract labor”, i.e., basically labor which
the majority of the people in society can do. If you are talking about someone, call him Albert, who has exceptional
skills which others in society cannot readily reproduce, then the matter becomes more tricky. I tried to explain this
situation between Questions 59 and 60 in the Annotations. (I am referring to Question numbers instead of page
numbers, because the page numbers differ between the English-only and the bilingual edition, but the Question
numbers don’t.) On the market, people act as if all labor powers were equal (by setting the products of these
labor powers equal through the exchange), but in reality, they are not. In this case Marx seems to say the qualitative
differences between these labor powers must somehow be reduced to quantitative differences, but there is no general

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 101
law how this will be done. It will depend on demand and supply. Yes, it is an important aspect of Marx’s theory
that not everything in the economy is determined by economic laws, there is leeway where one has to say, as you
said above: “it depends.” Two other prominent examples where “it depends” are the length of the working day (see
Chapter Ten) and the interest rate.
Message [74] referenced by [149]. Next Message by Darci is [75].
[132] Titania: i see two sides to this question. one side relates to the actual laborer and the
other side relates to the amount of actual labor put into a product. for the unskilled laborer,
the value is more because he must use more energy and put forth more time to make the
same amount of a good as the skilled worker. so, to the unskilled laborer, his labor is worth
more than that of the skilled worker. however, to the market, both the labors are the same,
even if it takes the unskilled worker twice as long to make something as the skilled worker.
the good is no better just because more time went into making it, it just might cost more in
production because the unskilled worker requires more enery and time. in summary, skilled
labor does produce somewhat more value per hour because this worker can put out more of a
good per unit of energy spent (this is good for the company of factory making the good). but,
one should not belittle the work of the unskilled worker. he just needs to work twice as long
to achieve the same effect... and ultimately, after doing his job for a long time, the unskilled
worker will be able to improve his speed and ability in his performance. the good should
be based on the a v e r a g e amount of labor which went into it, not what each individual
worker must do to produce it (for mattter of simplification and market uniformity... or each
individual good would need its own price tag). since this good will have the average amount
of labor in it, to a consumer all the goods will be the same, have the same value. the consumer
will have no need to discriminate between individual goods.
Hans: Marx distinguishes between two situations. In the first situation, two laborers produce the same use value,
but one laborer is fast and the other is slow. In the second situation, two different goods are exchanged, one is made
by a laborer with high skills and the other by a laborer who has no special training. You are discussing the first
situation, i.e, in effect you are answering Question 42 here. You got it pretty much right, and your sentence with
the “belittling” shows that you notice that this relentless comparison is oppressive. Your average rule does not help
here, however, the solution would be to allow people to develop their uniqueness instead of having to compete all
the time.
(datestring)Tue, 24 Jan 1995 12:23:17 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) on the last question i
wrote. is it still in the community’s best interest to incourage individuality if the person is
slow and they have the desire to improve. how does marx answer to the question of man
being inhearently lazy (i don’t think man is inhearently lazy, but i am just curious what marx
would have to say.)
Hans: You had written: they have no desire to improve. I changed it into “they have the desire to improve”,
assuming it was a typo.
Marx says that people are not lazy when they work for themselves.
Next Message by Titania is [246].
[188] Renegade: Marx seems to be correct in that he could only appeal to the experience
of his audience in answering this one.
Hans: I agree. I tried to argue in the Annotations that there is no general economic law governing the reduction of
skilled labor to simple labor.
From an egalitarian point of view–there is no such thing as unskilled labor. Only those
institutions which promote capitalist ideology distinguish by society’s values the importance
and definition of skilled versus the lack of importance and definition of unskilled labor.
102 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
Hans: Good observation!
Secondly, if the quality and quantity of the commodity produced by the labor do not
differ–one could say that the real value per hour is equal irregardless of what their wages
are. However, if we are going to gage the value according to wages, the higher costing
commodity has more value.
Hans: This is one of the “solutions” to the so-called “reduction problem” which does not seem convincing to me.
If the quality is equal and quantity is unequal then the worker who produces the most in
quantity is worth more value per hour.
Hans: Ok. here we are back to the issue of the fast versus slow worker.
If the quality is unequal and the quantity is equal then the worker who produces the
best in quality has more value per hour. If the unskilled or skilled laborer has a designer’s
name on his commodity–then the quantity and quality just don’t matter and he will charge
whatever the market will pay. The point is that we like to think that there are qualitative and
quantitative differences between skilled and unskilled and even more skilled. Probably the
happiest worker produces more qualitatively and quantitatively and therefore produces more
value per hour than any of the other factors involved. Another example illustrates this from
a study I am aware of. When a nurse practioner and an MD who are both trained to diagnose
and treat diseases are compared in a clinical setting, the nurse practioner is the one who
diagnoses more correctly and treats more efficiently than the MD. Both are skilled laborers.
I think it would be pretty obvious that in this case, the unskilled person would be the least
efficient. However, society stereotypes nurses as being less skilled than the highly skilled
physician and that physicians should be compensated for all their hard work. In actuality,
they both probably have spent the same amount of time studying and nurses probably spend
more time with patients–but because of socialization and historical facts–MDs are valued
more and their work is valued more by society. This is probably due to several factors–
access to medical school, gender, and even race. Probably there is a correlation between
access to opportunity, gender and race and whether one is a skilled–and highly esteemed in
society and nonskilled–demeaned by society. However, going back to the original question,
the audience (society) answers this one and true value is a relative thing.
Hans: Excellent!
Next Message by Renegade is [190].
[198] Koala: (datestring)Fri, 20 Jan 1995 06:54:03 +1000(/datestring) [147]:: posted the
following:
Hans: chance¿ I am not sure I completely agree with Marx’s theory. However chance¿ it could be my lack of
understanding and application. chance¿ However, I see a discrepancy in this theory when services are chance¿
involved. Let me explain. Lawyers provide a service, their chance¿ commodity. In monetary terms, they charge
$100 an hour. A chance¿ mechanic fixes a car, a service or commodity, yet only charges chance¿ $40 an hour. How
can this discrepancy exist? Under Marx’s chance¿ theory, this would imply that whatever the lawyer accomplishes
chance¿ in 1 hour has an equivilent value to whatever the mechanic chance¿ accomplishes in 1 hour. Can this be?
What about all of the chance¿ hours the lawyer spent in school learning how to do what he or chance¿ she does?
Do these background labor hours affect the chance¿ magnitude of value?
This is basically the issue of “the reduction of skilled labor to unskilled labor”, which
Marx never formally tackled. All Marxists believe that training affects the value of what a
worker produces; but there are basically two views as to how that effect occurs. The first
view is well captured in this quote from Meek’s Studies in the Labor Theory of Value: Marx

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 103
“was simply saying (a) that the value of the skilled labor power was higher because it had
cost more labor to produce; and (b) that because it had cost more labor to produce, it was
able to create a product of a higher value If p hours is his expected productive life, and t
hours of simple labor have been expended upon him and by him during the training period,
then when he starts work each hour of his labor will count as 1 + t/p hours of simple labor.”
(Meek 1973, p. 172) So in your lawyer/mechanic example, if the lawyer trained for 6 years
and the mechanic for 3, and both worked for 40 years, Meek’s formula would say that the
lawyer’s time is worth 1+6/40 hours of unskilled labor, and the mechanic’s is worth 1+3/40
hours. Which doesn’t quite explain your $100/$40 discrepancy! It also doesn’t explain why
it is profitable to train–either from the point of view of the student, or his/her employer. The
other view was expressed by Hilferding in his reply to a critique of Marx by Bohm-Bawerk
back at the turn of this century. The wording is a bit tortuous, but what he said was: “It
is not difficult to calculate the value of a labor-power engaged on skilled work; like every
other commodity it is equal to the labor requisite for its production and reproduction, and
this is composed of the cost of maintenance and the cost of training. But here we are not
concerned with the value of a skilled labor power, but with the question of how and in what
ratio skilled labor creates more value than unskilled.” (datestring)p. 141(/datestring) . He
later concludes: “Unskilled labor, if applied to the production of a qualified or skilled labor
power, creates on the one hand the value of this labor power... but on the other hand ... it
creates a new use value, ... that there is now available a labor power which can create value
with all those potentialities possessed by the unskilled labors utilized in its formation.” [This
is from p. 145. of Sweezy, P. (ed), Karl Marx and the Close of his System] Translating this
a bit: “Unskilled labor [training], if applied to the production of a qualified or skilled labor
power, creates on the one hand the value of this labor power [which turns up as a higher
wage]... but on the other hand ... it creates a new use value, ... that there is now available a
labor power which can create value with all those potentialities possessed by the unskilled
labors utilized in its formation [i.e., the skills passed on by training are worth several times
what it cost to train the student; thus training is profitable].” A good survey of this area was
done by Harvey in a paper called “The Value-creating Capacity of Skilled Labour in Marxian
Economics”, in the Review of Radical Political Economy, Volume 17 No. 1/2, 1985, pp. 83-
102. He concluded that Marxian economics treats training in the same way it treats capital
equipment; but he got Hilferding wrong. I comment on this area in a paper called “The
Misinterpretation of Marx’s Theory of Value”, in The Journal of the History of Economic
Thought, Vol. 15, No. 2, pp. 282-300. So this issue–of how you value skilled labor–has
at least two answers in Marxian thought, and the majority interpretation is probably Meek’s
(most Marxists aren’t aware that Hilferding had an alternative view), which I think most
Marxists would concede is a pretty poor explanation. There is one further issue: a lawyer is
a lot closer to being a capitalist than a mechanic, even if he/she is an employee in a law firm.
She she/he is likely to see a lot more of that $100 the firm charges for his/her time than is
the mechanic.
Message [198] referenced by [147]. Next Message by Koala is [199].
[288] Ledzep: Skilled labor does indeed produce more value per hour than unskilled labor
because every hour of work of the skilled laborer is multiplied by the time the skilled laborer
used to aquire the given skill. The unskilled laborer has no multiplying effect to his/her labor
during the same hour.
104 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
Hans: Ok, this is good for a rough first understanding.
Next Message by Ledzep is [289].
[329] Scarlett: I don’t know really what this means, but I think that it’s an interesting
question. Do we mean value to the recipient of the commodity produced? If we look at
the question in immediate terms only, than yes, a skilled laborer who produces more commodities
than an unskilled laborer would bring more value to the consumer. Another way
to look at this would be to see from the point of view of the worker. The laborer with more
developed skills might get less satisfaction from an hour of work than someone who was less
productive, but was learning more from that hour. This worker may “value” the knowledge
that they are gaining. Does that make sense?
Hans: I see what you are saying, but above all this paragraph says one thing loud and clear: You have no idea what
Marx means by the concept of “value.”
I think I would be better off starting over with this question too. I went back over some
of the material and I think I’m catching on.
Question 61
According to Marx, it has too. If I’m understanding correctly, the definition of a value
would be according to the amount of labor time which is necessary to produce the commodity
in society. If there is a choice between having the skilled laborer and unskilled laborer
producing, we would naturally choose the laborer who will produce the commodity more
efficiently.
Hans: Yes, now you got it. Often there is no choice: the unskilled laborer will not even be able to produce the
commodity.
I have another question. Why does Marx assume that labor time is dis-utility? It is possible
that not everyone hates labor and would rather be doing something other than working?
Is this something Marx is ignoring, or is this part of the “critique” and he is claiming that
this is another problem with capitalism?
Hans: Even if you like to work, if your product is taken away from you and used by others, this is still exploitation.
Marx is talking here about objective social facts independently of what people think about them.
Next Message by Scarlett is [346].
[397] Makarios: Yes, skilled labor does produce more value per hour than unskilled labor.
The reason for this, is that what Marx calls complex labor is simple labor that is “intensified”
or “multiplied”. So, in society, “simple” average labor is a given, but the more complex the
labor, the more productive the labor becomes, and therefore produces more value in any
given time period.
Hans: The chain of causation does not go through productivity. If labor becomes more productive due to technical
inventions, then it will not produce more value per hour. The causation goes through the reproduction costs and
sometimes even through the demand-and-supply situation of the labor power. The best way to think of it right now
is: One hour of skilled labor also represents a few minutes of training costs of the laborer, this is why it produces
more value.
Next Message by Makarios is [524].
[544] Sms: Why do teachers with tenure at the University of Utah, make more money
than those teachers without tenure? In Peter Philip’s “Labor Market Analysis Class” last
quarter, we attempted to answer this question. We compared the salaries of all University
of Utah faculty, and attempted to explain this question. We found that the teachers who
make the most money publish the most papers/books, receive high teaching evaluations,

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 105
attend prestigious colleges, etc. In essence, those teachers who earned the most, produced
the most–or in other words produced more value per hour.
Hans: You probably think you answered this Question correctly. Sorry that I have to disappoint you. You are
making two oversights. One of them is kind of hard to see, therefore you should not feel too bad.
(1) The questions how much value someone creates and how much that person get as a wage are two different
questions. According to Marx, capitalist profits come exactly from the fact that the worker produces more value
than he gets paid as a wage. Regarding teachers in public schoold, the situation is still different: they may be
producing use value, and these use values may be important or necessary for maintaining the capitalist system, but
they still don’t produce values, because their services are not sold on the market. In terms of value (and this is what
counts in our society) they are unproductive laborers. Univesity professors are between productive and unproductive
laborers. Rising tuition and increasing emphasis on outside grants etc. signal an increasing commodifiaction of the
products of our our labor.
(2) You assume as a matter of course that more use value means more value. If a new technology is introduced
with higher productivity, this means more use value but less value. Why shouldn’t it be the same with more skilled
labor?
(datestring)Tue, 7 Feb 1995 16:48:12 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) Dr. Ehrbar: In response
to your second statement–This sounds like a simple answer, but is it because of the law of
diminishing returns?
Hans: No, Marx does not refer to the law of diminishing returns. One can argue that he always thought in terms
of constant returns to scale. You’ll have to read Marx, the Annotations, and/or browse in the archive.
(datestring)Wed, 8 Feb 1995 14:26:07 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) Dr. Ehrbar: Marx would
say that skilled labor does not produce more value per hour than unkilled labor beacuse all
labor is equal in producing exchange value.
Hans: Basically this is right. Skilled labor produces a little more value than unskilled labor because the training
time should be prorated over the time on the job. But it does not come from the higher quality of the labor. In
capitalism, skilled laborers. like the unskilled ones, only count as warm bodies.
Next Message by Sms is [545].
[562] Tuan: Skilled labor is seemed to produce more value than unskilled labor because
they always put more effort, time, energy, knowledge, talent, understanding and deep thinking
into work. But Unskilled labor is just do exactly what they tell them to do. They do
not need to think much or knowledge about work. More imoprtantly, skill labored is twice
thinking than unskilled labor because they do the hard job compared unskilled labor do easy
job. Therefore, skilled labor is paid more than unskilled labor because of knowledge, talent,
and challenge.
Hans: First of all, there is a difference between producing more value and getting paid more. And secondly, if
someone produces more use value this does not mean they are producing more value. I recommend that you read
Marx’s Capital and/or the Annotations and browse in the archive.
Here is another submission from you for the same Question. How does it relate to your previous submission?
We are talking here about Marx’s concept of value!
(datestring)Tue, 7 Feb 1995 18:56:53 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) As far as I know, Most
of people who are wealthy, super althele star and well known singer donated thousand and
thousand to homeless country for charity because they first think their dollar value very less
or nothing and they can help poor people avoid death. Not only that, they easily make a
lot of money and even can not spend all. On the other hand, poor person value thousand
and thousand dolar very big because they are not easy to make money in a a year and even
future. However, generally speaking, the value of dollar are the same for all individual but
one person have more money while other do not have money.
106 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
Next Message by Tuan is [563].
Question 62 is 75 in 1996sp, 75 in 1996ut, 81 in 1997WI, 95 in 2000fa, 103 in 2002fa,
and 119 in 2004fa:
Question 62 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?
[88] Ann: An increase in material wealth would cause a decrease in value when using
the example of an economic term, the “snob effect.” Let’s say the consumption of BMW
cars went up. In the market economy on average the demand for BMW cars will go down
because the more of one good that is consumed, it will be less desirable to purchase.
Hans: This is an interesting theme which I have encountered in the past when teaching this class. People say that
one of the desirable things about consumption is that not everybody else has it too.
Next Message by Ann is [94].
[210] Telemark: Question 62: A graph might be easier to explain this by, but words will
have to suffice. Lets assume that I own ten grand pianos. When I got my first one I was
elated and placed the piano in the most expressive place I could find. I liked the one I had so
much that I got two more. Being the size of the grand pianos I had to move things around
and put these two in places that were not so much to my liking. I liked those so much I got
three more. Well the house was not big enough so I put these in the garage. I still get four
more making that ten in all now these won’t fit in the garage so I store them in a storage
shed. Now I have ten grand pianos all stemming from my excitement of owning and loving
the first. Yet, this first piano brought the most intrigue and excitement to myself. By the
time I bought the fourth and tenth piano these did not bring me the same feelings as when I
didn’t have a piano and then only one so this lowered the value of the pianos to my own self.
Next, I can only play one piano at a time so I am being wasteful in the fact that I have ten.
Lastly because of my material wealth I take for granted the true labor that was put into the
pianos and when selling them to others I don’t realize the full value of the pianos. That was
long and round about answer, but if in nothing else it brings the value of the material wealth
down in our own minds so that things just become “another” piano to us. We take them for
granted and so the material wealth does not mean as much to us.
Hans: Poor guy. He cluttered his house and yard with ten grand pianos, and he still is unable to learn from his
experience. We will talk about that stuff when we discuss Chapter Two and the concept of private property.
Next Message by Telemark is [235].
[545] Sms: Some believe that a wealthy person values one dollar less than a poor person
values one dollar. Although the monetary or market value of the dollar is the same to both
individuals. This is concept can be seen in the form of taxation for welfare programs. (I
believe that Pigou wrote something about this). Taxation for welfare programs tax those
who value the dollar less and give it to those who value the dollar more. The problem that I
see with this is that it is impossible to judge another person’s value.
Hans: Yeah, but this impossibility to fairly judge subjective valuatons is only used as an excuse for not doing
something which is such an obvious thing to do, especially as long as you have homelessness and a large percentage
of our children growing up in poverty.
(datestring)Tue, 7 Feb 1995 17:01:24 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) Dr. Ehrbar: I don’t understand
what the “obvious” thing is. I, like you, believe that people are for the most part

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 107
good. During his administration, President Hoover thought the answer to homelessness, and
poverty, is to let the people and the churches/organizations take care of it. I think I know how
most upper-level economists would respond to this notion–That this type of system would
not work due to free-riders. I disagree. What do you think? Without major gov. intervention,
would the public support welfare programs out of the goodness of their heart?
Hans: When I see a homeless person in a country as rich as the United States it is very obvious to me that this is
not how people should have to live, for whatever reason. This is also true for the enormously large percentage of
all children in this country growing up in poverty.
(datestring)Wed, 8 Feb 1995 09:03:30 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) Dr. Ehrbar: When you
state that you think that it is obvious that there should not be homeless people in a country
as rich as the United States, isn’t this a value judgement? Many believe that homelessness is
due to personal choices, drug abuse, etc.
Hans: And the children is personal choice too? Yes it is a value judgment, and yes I believe there are facts out there
which cannot be appropriately described if one tries to stay “value-neutral”. Surprise, this very issue is discussed
in the Annotations.
Back to your original submission:
But do I have a surprise for you: this is not at all what was asked. The Question above did not refer to subjective
value as it is familiar to us from utility theory, but to Marx’s concept of value which represents the labor content of
the goods.
(datestring)Tue, 7 Feb 1995 17:01:24 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) In response to your second
paragraph: this wasn’t a surprise. Were you trying to be facetious? I will look at this
again.
Hans: I am sorry. I didn’t mean it personally. Translated into straight talk, I meant: it really shows that you haven’t
read the text very carefully, if at all.
(datestring)Wed, 8 Feb 1995 09:03:30 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) In response to your last
statement, I have a surprise for you –I have read the text, however I must have over looked
Marx’s intentions.
Hans: I love the tone of your response. I am an anti-authoritarian myself, you know. If you read something like
Marx it is not enough to just read it. You really have to work on it and read it repeatedly. This is true for many
philosophical texts.
Next Message by Sms is [546].
Question 65 is 74 in 1995ut, 78 in 1996sp, 78 in 1996ut, 84 in 1997WI, 86 in 1997sp, 82
in 1997ut, 89 in 1998WI, and 101 in 2000fa:
Question 65 Give economic, not philosophical reasons why a commodity must appear as
what it is.
[246] Titania: a commodity must appear as what it is because society may place unwarranted
value on it. the difference between use and exchange value. adam smith said that this
relationship is evidenced in water and diamonds. water is probably one of the most important
things to sustain human life, but it costs relatively nothing (and that’s when we have to
buy it.) diamonds, on the other hand, are very difficult to mine and extemely expensive (but
justified because of the labor taken to find them.) however, diamonds (used as jewelry) do
not provide man with any use other than vanity. however, is mining diamonds justified if it
is for the use of science (ie using in lasers or cutting things.) ? it takes much labor to mine
diamonds and they are useful in science, but for the amount of labor spent, would it be more
108 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
beneficial to use something else. getting back to the point, a commodity must appear as what
it is because man might be putting too much labor into working for this commodity when
it is unwarrented. it is only worth the labor put into it. if we overworked for commodities
which are not worth the labor, the entire system would be base on false pretenses.
Hans: In my view, a tremendous misallocation of labor is one of the basic ills of modern capitalism.
You are addressing an interesting issue, but this is not the issue Marx was talking about in the text to which this
Question refers. You should always answer the Questions in the given context.
Message [246] referenced by [301]. Next Message by Titania is [248].
[279] Sinbad: A commodity must appear as what it is because it needs to be identifiable in
the eyes of the consumers and producers. If the commodity is socially accepted or consumed
it leads to future production. This follows the capitalist society where producers try to meet
the consumers demand by supplying or producing just what they want.
Hans: You are starting from the assumption that it is the goal of the capitalists to satisfy the consumers’ wishes.
If it is the goal of the capitalists to make money then it is no longer optimal for them to give the consumers full
information about what they are buying. And, by the way, this is not at all what Marx is talking about here.
Next Message by Sinbad is [280].
[301] Vansmack: Question number sixty-five asks for economic not philosophical reasons
why a commodity must appear as what it is. I can see a number of reasons why the product
must live up to all it says it is. The first reason is simply that people will not purchase the
commodity time and time again if it isn’t trustworthy. This means economic decline. Also,
the product’s reputation will get out black marking its reputation. Another reason is that if
other manufacturers find the commodity to be not what it says it is then trading could go
sour, therefore haulting the false commodity producer’s business.
Hans: You are identifying the commodity with what Marx calls the “body” of the commodity, i.e., a thing with a
use value. The commodity must not only say what its use value is, but it must also say that it is a value.
See [246]., my comments to her second try at this Question.
Message [301] referenced by [302]. Next Message by Vansmack is [302].
[331] Stxian: In economic sense, a commodity is produced by private manufactuers, but
the reason capitalist and manufactuers are investing and producing a paticular commodity
instead of saving the money into their own bank accounts and living off on its’ interest rates
is because they think they can get bigger profit and returns on producing this particular commodity.
Which means that this commodity must claim a place for itself on the social, society
and social division of labor. Also in addition to private producer’s will, society as whole must
be able and willing to accept this commodity for its’ use value and social contributions. In
this case, this paticular commodity’s future production function and production decisions
are to be directed by society’s whole market force and social and economic demands. Marx
believes that between the commodities, they must “tell each other that they are there”, and
commodity production must be integrated in some real social institutions. This is what it
meant by a commodity must appear as what it is.
Hans: We are not yet at the point where we can tell what the purpose of all of this is. Marx is building it from
the bottom up very slowly. You, by contrast, are giving an instrumentalist explanation from the assumption of a
purpose regulating it all, i.e., you are going from the top down.
By the way, “appear as what it is” has nothing to do with full disclosure about the use value of the commodity
(truth in advertising).
Next Message by Stxian is [336].
[339] Braydon: I am not sure what is being asked, but I will try and attack it anyway.
A commodity must appear in its own form in an economic standpoint because we must use

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 109
some form of exchange, ie. money, to acquire it. We must, in some way, purchase the
linen in order to make the coat. The linen must appear as itself, as a use value. It must
have created its own value, by achieving its own place in society and interacting with other
commodities and man. It may be only the “natural form” of the commodity, the coat, but
it must be in itself a commodity for economic purposes. The production process that is set
up in any economic society requires this. Linen had to take the “form of a commodity.” The
production process of linen into coats has to be socially accepted and it is, I am sure, in most
societies, but first linen must be accepted.
Hans: Nice effort, but you still seem to think that the coat represents the value of the linen because it shows what
one can make out of linen. This is a serious misunderstanding of what all this is about.
(datestring)Tue, 31 Jan 1995 17:23:19 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) Then will you please
explain to me what I must understand I am getting very frustrated because class time does
not provide enough time for answering questions and you did not try to help clear me up on
my “serious misunderstanding”.
Hans: Many others in this class misunderstood this too (so don’t feel bad), and I have commented on it in numerous
submissions I received and which are in the archive. I think either re-reading Marx’s text, browsing in the archive,
or reading my Annotations will enable you to clear up this misunderstanding. (On p. 45, left column, of the
English-only Annotations I specifically warn about this misunderstanding.) If these sources do not work for you,
or if there are remaining unclarities, please come back to me, then I will gladly explain it to you on the Internet.
Message [339] referenced by [379]. Next Message by Braydon is [406].
[342] Chp: A commodity must appear as what it is so that a value system may be determined
that quantifies each commodity. This system makes it possible to assign a rate
of exchange to different commodities so that their value can be represented in the form of
currency.
Hans: You sound as if someone was deliberately setting up a value system for the commodities. The image which
you should have about the underlying society is rather that isolated producers who consider each other’s labor as
equal and who think about it how they can communicate this to each other.
Next Message by Chp is [348].
[349] Leo: The labor that goes into a commodity represents its use value. Which represents
the amount of labor necessary to produce the commodity.
Hans: Try again! Browse in the archive!
(datestring)Wed, 15 Feb 1995 18:30:59 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) The definition of commodity
is that the end user will be different than the person that makes or produces it.
Hans: This is yet another wrong definition of the commodity. [639]
(datestring)Mon, 27 Feb 1995 15:03:03 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) Here it goes again,
A commodity is produced for use by others. If a commodity is produced by someone for
personal use, no exchange is necessary. In order for it to be a commidity, it must be produced
for use by another party. I hope the third time is a charm, I am running out of energy.
Hans: I guess the only answer in the archive which I approved of was translat’s, therefore you took it over, but you
left out the important last sentence. Perhaps I was a little over-enthusiastic about translat, it was not very clear. In
other words, nobody so far has given a satisfactory answer. Is there any hope that you’ll get up your energy and try
it? Indeed I tried to explain it in the Annotations, but obviously my explanation is not very understandable. A good
and clear reformulation would be in order.
Next Message by Leo is [350].
[381] Translat: A commodity is produced for use by others. If a person produces it for
himself, even if there is labor involved, there is no exchange; it has use-value. Therefore, for
110 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
it to be a commodity it must be produced for use by others. This creates a “market” whether
the exchange is for money or barter.
Hans: Very good!
Next Message by Translat is [382].
[881] Slrrjk: A commodity must take the form that it does because it is being produced
for others not for the person who is privately producing it. Commodities must be able to
interact with other commmodities in the social arena and in order to do this they must take
the form that a commodity does.
Hans: Yes, very good.
Next Message by Slrrjk is [882].
Question 66 is 75 in 1995ut, 79 in 1996sp, 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 66 Why can commodities not express their values in their own use values?
[225] Golfer: If we disregard the use-value of the commodities, only one property remains,
which is the property of labour. Commodities can’t express their own use-value,
because one use-value cannot be exchanged for another.
Hans: If you have troubles understanding the text, I invite you to ask specific questions to the list.
(datestring)Wed, 15 Mar 1995 15:16:19 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) The main reason commodities
can not express their values in their own use values is because; the value is in the
material and labor to produce the commodity. Without these two components their is no
value.
Hans: I don’t see how this prevents commodities from expressing their value in their own use value, but does not
prevent them from expressing their value in the use value of some other commodity.
Next Message by Golfer is [226].
[252] Hippie: Some commodities’ values cannot be expressed as use values because there
are many externalities can can have an effect on the value. A pair of jeans will always carry
relatively the same use value to a certain area, say Salt Lake. Down at the GAP, a pair of
jeans may cost upwards of thirty dollars. Down at Deseret Industries, that same pair of jeans
that has been worn once because they didn’t fit is now only worth four dollars
Hans: You are saying that in many cases the use value is the same but the value differs widely, therefore one cannot
tell the value from the use value. This is a very good example for Question 26: How can one come to the conclusion
that exchange value is not something inherent in the commodity?
But in the present situation Marx says that the value of the commodities can be expressed in the use value of
other commodities, but not in its own use value. And Question 66 was asking: why?
Next Message by Hippie is [253].
[293] Yoda: I believe that every commodity has a different use value for each person. An
example might be a bicycle. Some people use a bicycle for excercise, some use it for leisure,
some use it as a form of transportation while some don’t use a bicycle at all. The person
using the bicycle as a form of transportation will have more use value for this particular
commodity than the person who uses it for leisure. The bike, in turn will have a higher value
and be worth more for the individual that needs it for transportation. The same could be said
for all three of the individuals that use the bicycle for whatever reason. All three have higher
use values for the bike than the one individual that doesn’t need or want a bike. The bike

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 111
will be worth more to the three over the one individual who doesn’t use it. Every commodity
has a different value and use value for each person.
Hans: You still seem to be working with the wrong concept of value. It is about time you catch on to this. Using this
subjective concept of value, you are arguing that value is not intrinsic to the commodities, i.e., you are answering a
variant of Question 26: How can one come to the conclusion that your concept of value is not something inherent
in the commodity? With this you are, of course, running in open doors. You are not alone with this error, it is
also made in [60], apparently in [576], and in [650]. Assignment: What was Marx’s answer to Question 26? And
explain me the difference between Marx’s concept of value and what a lay person nowadays understands by the
word “value.”
Asmith: The confusion is between use-value, and the value that is represented by exchange value. Anything that
has usefulness whether produced with labor or not has use-value (air and other naturally present resources that don’t
require labor, included). Exchange value however derives from labor. The resource (e.g. air), without additional
labor added, has no value (no one will exchange their commodities for it) in the market place. Of course, air
is useful to breathe with, thus it has use-value, however, it is not necessary to exchange to get it, thus it has no
value (forget the old definition of value, “value” relates to its tradability, relating to its exchange value). Marx is
examining the capitalistic system of producing commodities. All societies have goods with use-value (including air,
I hope). But all societies don’t necessarily have commodities (products produced for the sole purpose of exchange).
The socially necessary labor (the average time over all) to produce the product is what gives the commodity value
(although labor is not always necessary for something to be use-value).
Although this may seem basic at this stage in the course, I offer it because I wish someone would have explained
it clearly to me a long time ago, so that I wouldn’t have had to agonize over it for so long. And also, I offer it because
I would like someone to help me understand it better, if I have a misconception somewhere in my explanation.
Message [293] referenced by [650]. Next Message by Yoda is [296].
[302] Vansmack: Question sixty-six asks why commodities cannot express their values
in their own use values. I think that this is a very interesting question. My opinion is that the
values lie in the marketing field. The value of a commodity will go up if it is well marketed.
There needs to be communication to consumers no matter how high the use value may be.
The supplier of the commodity needs to be socially in tune with their product just as they
need to be in tune with the usefulness of their product. I think that this question can help to
explain why the value of advertising is so great in a capitalist society today.
Hans: See what I wrote you in my response to [301].
Next Message by Vansmack is [304].
[303] Oj: Hans I am not positive that I understand this question, but I am going to try it.
So on your return could you explain it if I am incorrect. Commodities cannot express their
values in their own use values, because in order for a commodity to attain a “use-value”
it must get out into the market. It must communicate with the other commodities that are
challenging it to be bought and sold. The commodity must be not only bought, but accepted
by society. If a product does not go through the social system of economics it will fail in its
quest to gain “use-value”. Marx claims that a use-value cannot attain social acceptance on
its own. Thus a product in its natural form must aquire acceptance from a social standpoint.
Hans: Yeah, there are some correct elements in it. The commodity has been produced by someone who does not
need it, but who wants to use the abstract labor he or she put into the commodity as a claim check in order to
get a different piece of total social labor, embodies in a use value he or she needs. From the point of view of the
commodity this means that it must do what you call “gain use value,” i.e., go from where it is produced (and it is
not a use value for the producer) to somewhere where it is needed. If someone gives his product in exchange for
the linen, then that trader says; the labor time in this linen is socially necessary, because I need this linen. In this
way whatever he gives for the linen represents the value of the linen. This does not work if the trader were to give
linen for linen: he would have no reason to trade his linen for other linen if he needs linen.
Message [303] referenced by [610]. Next Message by Oj is [305].
112 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
[310] Chance: Marx states “Coats cannot be exchanged for coats, one use-value cannot be
exchanged for another of the same kind.” I believe his argument rests in the fact that the type
of human labor which goes into a commodity must be different than the type of human labor
which goes into another commodity if there is a desire for exchange or a determination of
use-value. I think he is arguing that the use-value of a coat differs from the use-value of linen.
Furthermore, the form of labor which goes into linen as compared to a coat differs as well.
On my level, I can see that one would not be able to determine the use-value of my service,
for example accounting, if I were trying to trade another doing the same thing. Furthermore,
why would one accountant desire to trade “commodities” with another accountant – they do
the same thing. I would not know the use-value of my service until I tried to trade with a
different type of service. My service would only have value in comparison to doctor services
for example. I would know that a payroll report could be exchanged for a prescription for
example.
Hans: You imply that when trading services with a doctor you think: “how is my labor comparable to that of
a doctor” and try to make a fair trade on this basis. This would probably be your thought process if you had a
friend who was a doctor and you wanted to trade accounting services for medical services without harming your
friendship. On the anonymous market, the agents do not think in terms of fairness but in terms of their own
advantage, and this is Marx’s assumption. The weaver is willing to trade 20 yards of linen for a coat because the
use value of having a coat is important enough for him that he is willing to give up the time which he put into the
20 yards of linen in order to get this coat. This is why Marx says that the use value of the coat is an expression of
the value of the 20 yards of linen.
Message [310] referenced by [703]. Next Message by Chance is [456].
[312] Zaskar: As stated by Marx, “If the use-values were not qualitatively different...
they would be absolutely incapable of confronting each other as commodities.” In order for
a commodity to express its value it must be compared against a commodity comprised of
different forms of useful labor. Because the coat and linen are comprised of different forms
of useful labor they have relative value one to another. A coat is a coat, relative to one
another they don’t express value.
Hans: Ok.
Next Message by Zaskar is [457].
[330] Sammy: The real value of a commodity must consist of more than just its usefulness.
For example, a diamond is nice to look at or wear, but this usefulness is not equal to its real
value. Diamonds are rare, thus they require a great deal of time in finding. Furthermore,
the skill necessary to sculpt the stone into its final form is also time consuming and requires
great skill. These factors combined with the usefulness of the diamond make up its real
value.
Hans: You answered the question: why do commodities not get their values from their use values? But this was
not asked. Marx uses the word “express” with a very specific meaning, it is something like: socially communicate.
Next Message by Sammy is [338].
[336] Stxian: We know that in order to become a commodity, the product must be transferred
to the other person, for whom it serves as a use-value, through the medium of exchange.
Which means nothing can be a value without being an object of utility. And since
the commodity has a twofold character, it must take a two-fold form (double form), this
double form contains the commodity’s own natural form, which is their use-value. But, in
order for the commodity to gain social acceptance, to engage and contributes its’ value in
society along with other commodities, there must also be a exchange present so that through

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 113
the medium of exchange and social use value, the commodities can gain social acceptance
into the society. Otherwise, no matter how highest quality of use value a commodity may
have, It would still not be accepted by society if it lacked the medium of exchange.
Hans: Yes. Your last sentence describes what it would look like if a commodity wanted to try to express its value
in its own use value. The commodity would say: look how I have been made; I am of the best quality, my producer
has the highest skills and has worked hard to produce me. I am such a good contribution to the products available to
society that he should be entitled to get for me alternative products of labor, which embody equally many hours of
labor embodied in use values he needs. The answer here would be: Yes, your producer worked hard, but we won’t
know if his work was socially necessary until we have found someone who needs you. Only by the exchange with
other use values is the commodity able to express its own value.
Next Message by Stxian is [347].
[350] Leo: They need to be compared to other commodities in order to have value place
on them.
Hans: Why is value something so relative if it merely comes from the labor in the commodity?
Next Message by Leo is [351].
[355] Tsunami: Commodities exist double forms, reflecting their twofold character of use
value and value. For a commodity to express its value in terms of its own use value would be
like saying “a pair of shoes is a pair of shoes” and relies on a tautological definition. Marx
says that because a commodity’s use value is their natural form, that commodity must take
the form of a commodity through “real social institutions”; the reason why commodities
cannot express their values in their own use values is because these are two very different
“values”, the first being defined by useful labor and the second being defined socially by the
congealed abstract of labor buried within that commodity.
Hans: Yes, this is a legitimate argument: if the commodity expresses its value in its own use value, then the double
character is lost. It must express its value in something other than its own use value.
Next Message by Tsunami is [358].
[359] Asmith: Use value alone does not a commodity make. Exchange value reflects the
labor imput embodied in the commodity. A commodity has exchange value relative to other
commodities.
Hans: Why must the labor input embodied in the commodity be expressed relatively to other commodities?
Next Message by Asmith is [502].
[475] Stalin: To answer this question one must start with a commodity and find someone
who would need that commodity. Say, the commodity is a pair of skis. The producer of
the skis finds someone who needs the skis and exchanges them for something that they need
personally. Whatever the producer chooses for the skis, shows what value the skis are to
him. The person who trades the skis would not trade them for another pair of skis because it
is of the same value and something which they already have.
Hans: Yes, exactly. I think this is the right way to answer these kinds of questions.
Next Message by Stalin is [477].
[563] Tuan: I believe that many of commodity have a different value for each individual.
For ex: some people use car for transportation while the other use it for leisure, reputation,
image, and even toy. The reason person use car for transportation because they are lower
class and consider’ poor while other use car for leisure, reputation and image because they
are wealthy and even millionar. More importantly, all of three have higher value for car
compared to one who do not care about car because they do not need car for transportation,
leisure, and image. Therefore, every commodity have different value depeding on how
people look at.
114 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
Hans: You are using the subjective concept of value, which Marx does not mean. Please work through the class
materials. You won’t be able to answer the questions satisfactorily without that.
Next Message by Tuan is [565].
[610] Sms: The use-value of a commodity can be determined by what the commodity can
be/will be exchanged for. The commodity must be compared to a commodity in a different
form, as an oz of gold will not be exchanged for an equal oz of gold. This is similar to our
previous question.
Hans: Look in the archive what I wrote in [303]
(datestring)Wed, 8 Feb 1995 22:37:19 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) People spend all day
creating use-value for commodities that they can exchange with someone else who has been
doing the same. The reason why commodities cannot express their values in their own use
value is that that the person who spends all day producing coats will not trade with another
person who has making the identical coats all day, but rather with a person who has been
making linen. In order for a commodity to express its value it must be compared against a
commodity of a different form in the market place.
Hans: Yes. This is an answer which makes sense.
Next Message by Sms is [611].
[882] Slrrjk: Commodities cannot express their values in their own use-values because
in order for a commodity to express its value it must be compared against a commodity of
a different form. By a different form I mean a commodity which is qualitatively different.
It would not make sense to trade something that you already have for something that you
already have. There really would be nothing to gain from such a transaction. But when
you trade something that you have that the other person needs and gain something that you
need from the transaction it is well worth your while. A commodity must express itself in
something other than its own use value because it seems to me that a commodity is only
worth something when measured against something else. Trading/exchange is based on
needs, and if both people possess the same commodity there is no need to exchange one for
the other.
Hans: Yes, you got it again.
Next Message by Slrrjk is [883].
Question 67 is 76 in 1995ut:
Question 67 Labor does not exist in the abstract but must always be expended in some
concrete form. How does it then show up that a commodity actually represents human labor
in the abstract and not simply e.g. tailoring labor?
[309] Zaskar: The nature of a commodity is that it is reproducible and usable by many
people. The value of a commodity is not derived by the labor output of any individual but
rather by a unit of society’s resonable output for that commodity. Were it not so a slow
weaver could charge more for a yard of linen than a more efficient weaver for the same
commodity. Therefore, labor must be expended in concrete form but valued in an abstract
societal sense.
Hans: This is right and good, but it was not the answer to Question 67.
Next Message by Zaskar is [312].
[346] Scarlett: To answer this question we would have to go back to the idea of the value
of a commodity. Although a commodity is a concrete form of expended labor, once the

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 115
commodity is produced, the labor cannot be retrieved and becomes, therefore, abstract. A
commodity such as a coat does not represent something like “tailoring labor” because once
the coat is sewn, the labor is no longer concrete and the commodity represents the “idea” that
labor has both been expended to produce the coat and labor would be necessary to replace
the coat.
Hans: Good independent thinking. The word “abstract” was chosen by Marx because under this aspect of labor,
the concrete form in which it is expended is abtracted from. But you are on the right track.
Next Message by Scarlett is [366].
[351] Leo: A commodity is assigned it’s value by the amount of labor socially necessary
to create the product.
Hans: Your answer has nothing to do with the Question asked.
Next Message by Leo is [493].
Question 69 is 77 in 1995ut, 80 in 1996sp, 81 in 1996ut, 87 in 1997WI, 90 in 1997sp, 86
in 1997ut, 142 in 2005fa, 162 in 2007fa, and 186 in 2010fa:
Question 69 What does Marx understand to be the riddle of money?
[190] Renegade: I believe that Marx sees the riddle of money as the concept that money’s
purchasing power lies not within money itself, but in the property of the commodities themselves.
We are socialized into thinking the opposite: that the money itself is what is valuable
and not the commodity itself.
Hans: Good instinct! It is not a question of value but of value form, even under the gold standard (in which money
was indeed valuable), it seems that money is so active and powerful because it moves all the commodities. Marx
however argues that the active part is not played by money but by the commodities. The commodities need to be
sold, this is why money seems so powerful.
Next Message by Renegade is [192].
[216] Vida: The riddle of money is that it acts as though it is a commodity and can be
exchanged as such, but in reality it it very much different from the commodity it is being
exchanged for. Marx believes a commodity to have a use value and an exchange value in
order to be considered a commodity. For example lets say were are capable of trading two
commodities: shoes for coats. The pair of shoes has a use value and an exchange value. I
can use the shoes to keep my feet warm in the winter months (use value) or I can decide to
trade the pair of shoes for a coat (exchange value). In essence the shoes have two values.
Same as does the coat. Money in contrast to other commodities exists only for its exchange
value. In fact it is not a commodity. Although I have a twenty dollar bill that I can trade
for a pair of shoes or a coat, the money has no use value. I cannot use the money to keep
my feet warm or my body warm for that matter. I can only use the money to trade for a
“real” commodity. The irony or riddle, therefore is that although money lives and breathes,
in the literal sense, as a commodity it is in fact lacking in a fundamental way because of its
uselessness. The producer of the pair of shoes or of the coat that accepted my twenty dollar
bill was dupped. In essence, he exchanged something useful for something useless.
Hans: In one respect you are right. Marx argues that money is less than what it seems. But Marx does not share
your thesis that money is not a commodity. In his view, referring to the gold standard, money was a commodity that
got stuck in one of its many possible forms of value. Marx argues that money can be represented by a symbol only
in certain of its functions. All this is in Chapter Three, which will not be covered in this class this time around.
Next Message by Vida is [247].
116 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
[304] Vansmack: My conclusion would be that Marx saw that it was the money being
used in exchange for commodities is actually a commodity itself. Money’s sole purpose is
to buy all commodities which is more of a property of a commodity than of money. This is a
riddle because of its irony and because of the ignorance of society itself. Society understands
that money is essential for commodities, but it doesn’t understand the commodity that they
are actually possesing when they are searching for commodities they can buy.
Hans: [305].
Next Message by Vansmack is [434].
[305] Oj: Marx claims that society knows that commodities are payed for with money.
However, he also notes that society does not understand the relationship between money
and commodity, or is money a commodity? Marx cites that people rarely think this way.
It is ironic how money is exchanged and traded. These are the same characteristics of a
commodity. To Marx the riddle of money is that people use a commodity (money) to buy
commodities being the products. Society does not realize that when they are preparing to
buy a commodity they actually are holding one right in their hands, thus being a riddle.
Hans: You are on the right track, looking for an organic link between money and commodities. But that money
was a commodity was quite obvious at Marx’s time, under the gold standard, and it is no longer true today. The
thing which Marx stressed more (and which is still true today) is: The difficulty lies not in comprehending that
money is a commodity, but in discovering how, why and through what a commodity is money. [186:1] This gives
us the answer to the riddle of money. The riddle of money itself is simply: where does money get its purchasing
power from?
Message [305] referenced by [304]. Next Message by Oj is [445].
[325] Deadhead: The riddle of money is that in order to purchase a commodity you
must first have money to buy it but without the commodity behind the currency that gives it
value, the money is of little or no value alone. The value of the money is derived from the
commodities that back it up and give it value.
Hans: It is not merely a riddle where money gets its value from. Your grandmother’s chinese vase has value but
you cannot use it to buy things. The riddle is; where does money get its universal acceptance as a means of purchase
from?
Next Message by Deadhead is [327].
[348] Chp: Marx states that money obtains its value from commodities, not the other way
around as most people interpret it. They view money as having a value in and of itself, but
Marx believes its value comes from the commodities it is used to represent.
Hans: This the neoclassical theory of indirect utility with a subjective concept of value. At Marx’s time, money
was gold and, being a product of labor, had its own value. It did not have to get the value from anywhere. The
inversion which you probably refer to here is that Marx considers money passive and the commodities active, which
contradicts common sense perceptions. And this gets us closer to the riddle of money: I think by “riddle of money”
Marx means the question: how did money get its power to purchase everything?
Next Message by Chp is [352].
[358] Tsunami: I find Marx particularly interesting because he describes the riddle of
money after analyzing a barter system and it seems to me that he does a far better job of
deciphering the money riddle than say Milton Friedman and his cohorts. Marx understands
the riddle of money to be the origin of the money form, the development “of the expression
of value contained in the value relation of commodities from its simplest... outline to the
dazzling money form.” The idea of money as an empty carrier of commodity value is particularly
interesting for me since money can be dollars, cigarettes in the prisoner’s camp, or
even human bodies.

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 117
Hans: “Empty carrier of value”: I think you mean the right thing.
But don’t call it empty. It is independent of any particular use values, and thus can be converted instantly into
any particular use value. In a sense this is very “full.”
And don’t call it “carrier” of value. It is an expression of value. It is the abstraction “value” which has become
a reality.
Next Message by Tsunami is [360].
[382] Translat: The fact that in a capitalist society everything is reduced to a money
form. The cliche’, everything has a price, is a prime example. The amount of human labor
or materials needed to produce an item is not of interest, just the bottom line of “how much”
something will costs, or how much can I get for what I have made.
Hans: Are you still thinking that this would be a better society if commodities were really traded at their labor
content? Marx never subscribed to such half-baked utopias, in fact, he severely criticized them.
No. I am fully aware that this idea of commodities traded for labor content is a fallacy.
But I believe that capitalism takes the extreme as socialism takes the other extreme. There
needs to be a sensible middle and I believe Marx was trying to find it.
Hans: Marx does not say that labor values are a fallacy, but on the contrary that modern money represents labor,
that profits come from the unpaid labor of the workers. And Marx was certainly not someone who was treading a
sensible middle ground.
(datestring)Wed, 15 Feb 1995 15:41:40 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) If Marx was not trying
to find some sense to trade then I am again missing the point. I was sure that he was trying
to find some equity for all workers.
Hans: He claimed that this equity could only be found if one abolishes production for commodities. Marx said:
there is no such thing as a fair wage, because one has to abolish wage labor. As long as people have to sell their labor
to those who have money, the system cannot be fair. This unfairness arises on the basis of commodity production
which seems so fair because it seems to mean that the only way one can claim ownership over something is to work.
Of course, in modern times productive labor is a very bad strategy for someone who wants to get rich. Marx says
this is not a violation of the law of value but its logical consequence. See Section 1 of Chapter 24: “The inversion
which converts the property laws of commodity production into laws of capitalist appropriation.”
Message [382] referenced by [2007SP:1048]. Next Message by Translat is [383].
[477] Stalin: The riddle of money is that money itself is a commodity. If I look at a $5 bill
and a $20 bill, and then ask why one piece of paper of the same dimensions and construction
should be worth more. Why does a $20 bill have more purchasing power than a $5 bill which
are made of the same thing.
Hans: The example you are bringing here seems to indicate that the riddle of money lies more in the question
where the purchasing power of money comes from, because it can certainly not come from the intrinsic worth of
the little peace of paper you have in your hands. I take it that this is what you really mean with your answer, and
this is also the right answer.
Next Message by Stalin is [481].
[546] Sms: The riddle of money is in the analysis of the relative form of value and the
equivalent form of value, and their divisions between different commodities.
Hans: No, this is how Marx solves the riddle of money.
Message [546] referenced by [2007fa:82]. Next Message by Sms is [547].
[994] Mikey: This did take some thinking. I went through the archives and not many got
the answer right. But out of all of them I came to the conclusion that the commodity is the
one that has the value. Money has no value unless it is used to purchase a commodity.
Hans: My suggestion is that you should read the archive more carefully. Don’t try to do these questions on the
quick.
Next Message by Mikey is [995].
118 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
Question 70 is 78 in 1995ut, 81 in 1996sp, 88 in 1997WI, and 91 in 1997sp:
Question 70 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?
[99] Darci: The simple expression of the value of a commodity is the commodity value
in relation to a different commodity–the value expressed as an equivalent of a different
commodity–X quantity of commodity A is equivalent to Y quantity of commodity B. The
“dazzling” expression of the value of a commodity is money (gold, etc.).
Hans: Yes.
Next Message by Darci is [100].
[220] Ghant: The simplest expression of the value of a commodity is its exchange value,
or its value expressed in terms of another commodity. As an example, the simplest expression
of the value of A is the formula: x commodity A is worth (=) y commodity B.
Hans: This is just one form of the exchange value. Its price would be another form, and all the forms discussed in
Section 3. One should therefore say: the simplest expression of value is the simplest form of the exchange value.
The most dazzling commonly known expression of the value of a commodity, is its money
form. The money form can be described in terms of a price on a price tag, it is quantitative,
without respect to another commodity.
Hans: The link to other commodities is still there, but in modern capitalism it is very indirect.
Next Message by Ghant is [221].
[226] Golfer: The simplest form of expresion is that of one commodity to another commodity
of a different kind. The most dazzling form of a common value would be the motley
natural form of the use-value, or it is also referred to as the money form.
Hans: You are trying to paraphrase the translation in the Random House edition without understanding what it it
supposed to mean.
(datestring)Wed, 15 Mar 1995 15:22:58 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) The simplest expression
of a commodity is the raw material used in the commodity. The most dazzling expression
of a commodity is of course the finished commodity. This displays not only raw
material but labor. For example; a coat would express a dazzling commodity, the material to
make the coat would express only the simplest expression.
Hans: Why did you start from scratch with a completely different explanation? This one is completely off. You
had the right place in the Random House edition in your earlier answer. All it would have taken you to do is go
over it and try to understand what it says, so that you can tell me in your own words what it says. This is not that
impossible.
Next Message by Golfer is [227].
[271] Sprewell: The most simple expression of the value of a commodity is the value
relation between two different commodities. Values are expressions of social unity and
cannot be determined by looking at an individual commodity, but must be compared to that
of another commodity of a different kind.
Hans: Very nice shorthand explanation why a commodity cannot express its value in its own use value.
The most “dazzling”, commonly known expression of the value of a commodity is the
money form. It is “dazzling”, or “blinding” as the annotations put it, because it hides the
comparison between the two commodities by placing an exchange value on them in terms
of dollars and cents.
Hans: Excellent.
Next Message by Sprewell is [272].

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 119
[311] Pegasus: Question 70; The most simple expression of the value of a commodity is
its value in relation to another commodity. The most “dazzling” form of value is the money
form. The money form is a more complex expression of the simple form of value. Value
attains a complicated form through evolution from a simple form.
Hans: Yes. I would say: “more complete” instead of “complicated”.
Next Message by Pegasus is [313].
[314] Marinda: The simplest expression of the value of one commodity is its comparison
with another commodity. The most dazzling (webster: to dazzle is to blind with brightness or
to confound with brilliance) expression of value is in terms of money. I take dazzle to mean
not only blinding but blinding because of its assumed obviousness. Because people raised
in a monetary society are accustomed to focusing on money, we accept it without thinking
much about it, or it seems so prominent and so real that we are distracted or prevented from
a deeper understanding, i.e. that money is not the only or real measure of value.
Hans: Yes. Excellent observation.
Next Message by Marinda is [319].
[327] Deadhead: The most simple expression of the vAlue of a commodity is the value
realtion between two commodities of different kinds, or their exchange value for one another.
The dazzling or most commonly known expression of the value of a commodity is its money
form, in which the value of the commodity is represented in a third, neutral form that allows
its value to easily be compared with that of other unlike commodities.
Hans: Good.
Next Message by Deadhead is [328].
[347] Stxian: The most simple expression of the value of commodity is the value relation
that is already evident between the two commodities, which are both the use value and
exchange value the commodities contained within itself and comparing to others. Most
important of it all, that can be one commodity to a single commodity of a different kind,
whatever this kind may be. The most dazzling commonly known expression of the value
of a commmodity is the commodity’s money form. Marx considered the money form of
commodity to be a property of the commodities, because money is a special function of the
commodity. Marx argues that only through the understanding of the simpliest expression of
the value of money, can one truely understand the true nature and complex relationship that
is hidden between commodity and it’s “money form”.
Hans: Ok.
Next Message by Stxian is [623].
[383] Translat: The simplest form is commodity to commodity. 20 yards linen for 1
coat. The cloth define itself in the coat. The coat is a use item and has additional value from
the labor of construction. The “dazzling” value is the exchange value; what the market will
allow.
Hans: There are two errors in this, one serious one and one more subtle one.
First the serious error: you are still thinking that the coat expresses the value of linen because the coat is made
of linen and it is directly useful while linen is not. No, this is not so. The coat expresses the value of the linen
because the linen weaver, who spent all this time producing the linen, is willing to trade the linen away for the coat.
Note that it is not necessary for this that the coat is made out of linen. He could also have expressed the value of
linen in beer.
And the expression of the value of the linen in money, which Marx calls the “dazzling” expression, is the
amount of money for which the linen weaver is willing to relinquish the linen.
120 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
This gets us to the more subtle error: don’t look at this expression of value only in quantitative terms. What
Marx finds “dazzling” is the quality of the value expression, that there is one commodity, gold, in which all other
commodities express their values. He does not find its quantity dazzling (but your remark “what the market can
bear” suggests that you think the quantity is the important aspect).
(datestring)Wed, 15 Feb 1995 15:42:58 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) Is Marx therefore, reducing
commodities at this point to money only?
Hans: I hope my re-writing of the previous comments cleared this up.
Next Message by Translat is [384].
[404] Oregon: The simple form of a commodity is seen in the hidden value of that
commodity. i.e. linen that is used to create a coat.
Hans: Again the same mistake, trying to derive the value relation betwen coat and linen from their relationship as
use values. “ Cheeseburgers: ” [340], and elsewhere.
The dazzling form of a commodity is the monetary price that the commodity presents.
The monetary value is expressed in labor value + use value + profit margin.
Hans: This mixture makes for an interesting theory of prices.
Message [404] referenced by [403]. Next Message by Oregon is [405].
[674] Sinikka: Question 70: Suggestions for the most simple and the most dazzling
expressions regarding value relations: “off-rack” - “Designer” “Bargain basement” - “Fifth
avenue” “Third class” - “Posh” “Economy value” - “Luxurious”
Hans: These Questions do relate to Marx’s text. Their purpose is to induce the participant to read the text carefully.
Next Message by Sinikka is [675].
Question 71 is 79 in 1995ut, 83 in 1996ut, 89 in 1997WI, and 129 in 2003fa:
Question 71 Doesn’t Marx contradict himself when he says the Simple form of value is
difficult to analyze?
[100] Darci: Marx does not contradict himself when he says the simple form of value
is difficult to analyze because if one looks at the value of commodities as equivalent then
quantities must become involved. As quantities become involved in the analyses then it
become more and more difficult to analyze. For example, if one looks at all of the equivalent
values, i.e. X quantity A = Y quantity B or Z quantity C or W quantity D, then does it
make Y quantity B equivalent to Z quantity C or W quantity D? According to Marx this
analyses does not work mathematically and X quantity A is not the reciprocal of Y quantity
B because one value must take an active role in the equation and one a passive role (A being
analyzed using B as the measure). Differences must become somehow equal with a common
denominator and at this point of the analyses there is no common denominator.
Hans: This is therefore a kind of mathematics which we are not used to: the equivalence between commodities is
not symmetric and also not “transitive” as the mathematicians say.
Next Message by Darci is [217].
[308] Chance: No. The concept of value in and of itself is very simple. However, for
most of us, the concept is somewhat intangible. Value in our society today is based on
tangible items, such as a coat costs X amount of dollars. It therefore has value. However, in
Marx’s terms, this example would better be understood as use-value. Therefore, value is not
a concept which is easy to relate to, and therefore a simple concept becomes very difficult to
analyze. Moreover, as has been discussed previously, an understand of the basic groundwork
is essential to an understanding of the higher levels. Value is a basic groudwork that must

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 121
be understood. However, value, as I am sure we will read, becomes a very complex concept
and becomes very difficult to analyze at higher levels.
Hans: You answered the question whether it is true that the simple concept of value is difficult to analyze. Let’s
get this concept straight before going on to look at the concept “form of value”. You are right that that which we
normally think of when we hear the word “value of a good” is its use value or, more precisely, its use value for us.
Marx uses the word “value” in a different meaning. For him, value is not something personal and subjective,
but it is something objective, an invisible social reality.
The only subjective thing about value – as Marx uses the term – is our perceptions of the magnitudes of value.
Whenever we think something is “overpriced” there is a discrepancy between our mental image of what we think
the value of something is and empirical reality. (And we may be right: things may be offered for sale at prices
which are out of line with their “values”.) I know from my own experience: when I first immigrated into the U.S.
in 1972, I could go into a store and have no idea whether the items in that store had high prices or low prices. It
took me some time to learn the “values” of things in the new environment.
Now I talked all this time about the magnitude of value. Value also has a form, and this fact is commonly
entirely overlooked. Perhaps one can say in brief: The statement “value is what makes things exchangeable” and
the statement “the exchangeability (or tradability) of things (i.e., that what Marx calls their exchange value) is the
‘form’ of value” are equivalent. But there is not only one form of value. There is the direct exchangeability of two
objects against each other, and there is the fact that all commodities can be had for money. Both of these are forms
of value, and the transition from the first to the second is what Marx tries to develop in Section 3. The starting point
of this development, the Simple form of value, is what Marx considers so difficult.
Next Message by Chance is [310].
[338] Sammy: Just because the simple form of value is easily understood when relating
the value of one commodity in terms of another it does not automatically follow that
the quantities of the commodities are given, or even easily ascertained. Other factors contribute
to make this analysis of the simple form difficult, thus Marx’s statement is not at all
contradictory.
Hans: Ascertaining the exchange proportions of things is not the same as analyzing the form of value.
Next Message by Sammy is [340].
[378] Eagle: No. The simple form of value is a very easy to understand equation, but it is
difficult to analyze because it is difficult to decide how many of a commodity is worth how
many of another commodity.
Hans: The relative magnitudes of value are indeed often the most relevant information whenever you buy or sell
something, and a precise answer is very difficult. But Question 71 talks about the form of value, not its magnitude.
(datestring)Tue, 7 Feb 1995 20:59:31 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) Will you please explain
what is meant by the form of value? I’m unclear on what this means.
Hans: The most commonly known, although not the simplest, form of value of a commodity is its price. By giving
his product a price, the producer expresses that his product is produced for the market, i.e., that the labor in it counts
for him as much as any other labor, and that he wants to convert the commodity into general labor, i.e., money. I.e.,
the price not only gives quantitative information but also qualitative information. But there are other forms of value.
Exchange relations between two commodities are also expressions of their values.
Next Message by Eagle is [379].
[403] Oregon: The simple form of a commodity is seen in the transformation process.
In the case of the linen and the coat the linen is seen as the simple form. The value of the
linen is expressed in the coat. Linen is the simple form of value that is enriched when it is
transformed into an object of more value.
Hans: Again same error as in [404].
The linen to a person is just linen, however the linen in the coat is a coat, which can be
valued more by a person shopping for a coat. The first commodity is the active role and the
122 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
second is the passive role. The second commodity is the equivilant that fufills the form of
the first.
Next Message by Oregon is [404].
Question 72 is 80 in 1995ut, 83 in 1996sp, 84 in 1996ut, 90 in 1997WI, 93 in 1997sp, 88
in 1997ut, 95 in 1998WI, 112 in 2000fa, 117 in 2001fa, 147 in 2004fa, and 199 in 2010fa:
Question 72 In the equation “20 yards of linen = 1 coat,” what is the difference between
the left hand side and the right hand side?
[221] Ghant: 20 yards of linen = 1 coat —————– —— use and exchange value value
only relative form equivalent form active passive fixed static The left side of the equation is
the real thing being described. It is unable to describe itself in terms of itself, so the right
side is necessary. The right side is a description of the exchange value of the left. It is
symbolic of the value, in that it can be expressed using many other commodities and values.
The right side of the equation is passive, it is present only so that it can be used to compare
the left side to another commodity. This side of the equation is merely being pointed at by
the left, who is saying, I have a value, and can see the same thing in that (the commodity on
the left side).
Hans: Good. Did you think of pointer variables in computer programming?
Just one little nitpick: the right side is not a symbol of the value of the left, since it itself is a thing of value. It
is a representation of the value of the left. (This is the answer to Question 73).
Next Message by Ghant is [222].
[236] Frosty: In this equation, “20 yards of linen” represents the relative value which
plays an active role and “1 coat” represents the equivalent value which plays the passive
role. The relative and equivalent values here are two sides in the expression of value. The
linen is a relative value because it is expressed by the use-value of the coat. The coat in this
case is the equivalent value. It provides the material in which the linen can be expressed.
Without the value of the coat, the value of the linen cannot be represented since it is only a
relative value.
Hans: You have the wrong conception what the value expression
20 yards of linen = 1 coat
means. It does not mean that the coat expresses the value of linen because linen itself is useless but if made into
coats it is useful. (You demonstrate very clearly in [237], that you understand it this way, but it is also recognizable
here.) It means that the producer who produced the linen did it not in order to have linen, but the linen is for him
so-to-say his claim check in order to get hold of a piece of society’s product. The labor he put into the linen counts
as a mere embodiment of abstract labor, and it has to be turned into something he can use by the exchange. The
linen producer says this by his willingness to exchange the linen for the coat. A more complete and adequate form
of saying this is by his willingness to sell the thing, but the existence of money is not assumed at this point of the
derivation – on the contrary, money is derived as the natural expression of the value of the linen and of all the other
products made for sale.
Message [236] referenced by [379]. Next Message by Frosty is [237].
[248] Titania: the difference between 20 yards of linen and 1 coat is the labor taken to
make the coat. both the linen and the coat have value, but one is more physical than the
other (the coat took physical labor as opposed to the theoretical labor which will go making
the linen a coat). this is not to discount the labor which has already gone into making the
material by growing the flax and weaving it. the coat has two forms of labor in it, making the
material and then making the coat. the material, obviously has only one level of production.

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 123
the linen is valuable only in what it is capable of producing. granted, one could wrap the
material around them, but it is a v e r y ineffective form of keeping warm. the coat embodies
actualized labor: sewing, cutting etc. it also incorporated more warmth because of the way
it has been designed, it holds body heat in more effectively than wrapping material around
one’s self. (of course, this last comment is off the general subject, but i thought i added to
the difference between the material and the actual coat.)
Hans: Your concept of labor value is different than Marx’s. You distinguish between different labors, one being
more physical than the other. Marx, by contrast, says that all labors are equal so far as they produce value.
Since value comes from a hierarchical structure of labors, it is also logical that you have a hierarchical structure
of expression of value. Your theory has its inner logic, but it is not Marx’s theory.
(datestring)Wed, 25 Jan 1995 08:51:02 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) sorry, i read the text and
later went on to the questions. i never put the two together in my mind. one must use the
relationship between one coat and 20 yards of linen to show value in both products because
value cannot be expressed for one good by comparing it to itself. you cannot say “20 yards
of linen is as valuable as 20 yards of linen.”...another good must be brought into the equation
to give the initial good a more universal meaning of value.
Hans: Yes. But “universal” is still too philosophical to me. The economic rationale behind this is: the linen
was produced for the exchange. The linen weaver has as much linen in his private closet as he will ever use. He
is producing more linen not for himself but his goal is to convert the abstract labor of producing the linen into
something which he can use. Now he is not allowed to talk to others, he can communicate this only through the
linen. The linen says therefore: I was produced for the sake of the abstract labor inside me! The linen demonstrates
this by its willingness to trade places with any coat that comes along.
the 20 yards of linen and the coat are good examples of value because they both reduce
the idea of value to a common denominator. the coat represents the relative form of value
and the linen is the equilavent form of value; meaning that the good we buy for its relative
form of value has a direct use and the good incorporating an equilavent form of value we buy
for what it can potentially give us. however, the two goods have the same value and both are
necessary to have an understanding of either. a comparison is necessary to establish value in
either.
Hans: I think you are going in the direction of what I just wrote.
Message [248] referenced by [883]. Next Message by Titania is [369].
[253] Hippie: The left hand side of the equation is the relative form of value and the right
side is the equivalent form of value. this statement is as erroneous as saying that 10 apples
= 1 gallon of cider. You may be able to make a coat from twenty yards of linen, but that is
a material equivalence value. It does not include the labor involved to make the coat. Also,
Where did the buttons come from?
Hans: You have the same misunderstanding about this value form as many others, but to your credit, you notice
that this mis-understood notion does not make any sense.
Message [253] referenced by [379]. Next Message by Hippie is [323].
[267] Alex: The value of the left hand commodity is represented as relative value, while
the second commodity fulfills the function of the equivalent, or it is in the equivalent form.
The left hand commodity plays the “active” role while the right hand commodity plays the
passive role. The coat represents the value of the linen.
Hans: So far you have demonstrated that you have read the text. Now the next sentence is important, since here
you give your understanding of it in your own words:
124 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
To me this kind of means that the linen has no value (or at least less value) until it is made
into a coat.
Hans: No, no, no! This is a basic misunderstanding which is very widespread. Please browse through the archive
and find those other submissions which make the same error. As a starter look at [237]. Please send me a list of the
archives files which you have found.
(datestring)Wed, 1 Feb 1995 18:50:18 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) Professor Ehrbar, here
is a list of the archive files that I looked at concerning my answer to number 72. I think they
helped me to clarify the distinction between the left and right hand side of the equation. ann
73, asmith 73, chance 73, civic 73, despain 73, dubbel 73, eddie 73, marlin 73, frosty 73,
ida 73, ranger 73, scarlett 73, yoda 73, zaskar 73, allison 72, chp 72, deadhead 72, frosty 72,
ghant 72, hippie 72, ida 72, marlin 72, nena 72, sammy 72, sinbad 72, titania 72, yoda 72.
Hans: Below is a menu of these items you enumerated here. Many of them do not make the misunderstanding
which I was talking about. Can you describe to me briefly which misunderstanding I meant, i.e., what is the
common misconception and what is the right way to look at it?
(datestring)Fri, 10 Feb 1995 14:59:28 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) Professor Ehrbar, Sorry I
put this off until now but here is what I have been able to come up with concerning question
72 The Coat represents, or is the form of the value of 20 yards of linen, and is the social
manifestation of abstract labor. The only reason for the existence of the right side of the
equation ( the coat ) is so that it can show the exchange value of the left.
Hans: So far it is right, but the next sentence is wrong, therefore let me elaborate here: By his willingness to
exchange his 20 yards of linen for a coat, the linen weaver demonstrates how much the 20 yards of linen are worth
to him.
In other words the coat in this equation is being used to compare the linen to other commodities.
Hans: No, the other commodities are not in here yet. Right now this is a relationship between linen and coat. Marx
says it is a defect of the Simple form of value that it does not encompass the other commodities. He goes through
quite a development in Section 3 until he comes to the point that also the silk expresses its value in the coat. Where
you say “in other words”, Marx uses many pages to get there.
I think the misconception is thought that the value of the linen depends on the coat, this
is not true. The equation is simply trying to show the exchange value of the linen by saying
it is equal to one coat. One can imagine that if 20 yards of linen equal one coat, and that
3 yards of silk equal one coat, then 20 yards of linen equals 3 yards of silk, the coat here
is being used to show the exchange value of various commodities. Again I think that my
missconseption was that the value of the linen somehow depended on the coat.
Hans: * Menu:
* Ann’s 73: (ann073)Ann’s 73. * Asmith’s 73: (asmith073)Asmith’s 73. * Chance’s 73: (chance073)Chance’s
73. * Civic’s 73: (civic073)Civic’s 73. * Despain’s 73: (despain073)Despain’s 73. * Dubbel’s 73: (dubbel073)Dubbel’s
73. * Eddie’s 73: (eddie073)Eddie’s 73. * Marlin’s 73: (marlin073)Marlin’s 73. * Frosty’s 73: (frosty073)Frosty’s
73. * Ida’s 73: (ida073)Ida’s 73. * Ranger’s 73: (ranger073)Ranger’s 73. * Scarlett’s 73: (scarlett073)Scarlett’s 73.
* Yoda’s 73: (yoda073)Yoda’s 73. * Zaskar’s 73: (zaskar073)Zaskar’s 73. * Allison’s 72: (allison072)Allison’s 72.
* Chp’s 72: (chp072)Chp’s 72. * Deadhead’s 72: (deadhead072)Deadhead’s 72. * Frosty’s 72: (frosty072)Frosty’s
72. * Ghant’s 72: (ghant072)Ghant’s 72. * Hippie’s 72: (hippie072)Hippie’s 72. * Ida’s 72: (ida072)Ida’s 72. *
Marlin’s 72: (marlin072)Marlin’s 72. * Nena’s 72: (nena072)Nena’s 72. * Sammy’s 72: (sammy072)Sammy’s 72.
* Sinbad’s 72: (sinbad072)Sinbad’s 72. * Titania’s 72: (titania072)Titania’s 72. * Yoda’s 72: (yoda072)Yoda’s 72.
Message [267] referenced by [352] and [379]. Next Message by Alex is [268].
[280] Sinbad: The left-hand side of the equation is the relative value of 20 yds of linen to
the right-hand side of the equation, the coat, which is its equivalent form. The actual position

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 125
in the equation depends on whether it is the commodity whose value is being expressed, or
the commodity in which value is being expressed. In this example, the linen expresses its
value in the coat; the coat is the material in which that value is expressed.
Hans: Yes.
Next Message by Sinbad is [281].
[282] Marlin: 20 yards of linen is relative. In other words, it is measured only relative
to the coat. The coat is assigned worth measured against the the linen. It also has a use
value of its own. Each show that they are interchangeable with the other as far as containing
exchange value, but the coat has a use value of its own.
Hans: The linen has use value too. Any other use value besides coats, even a use value which has nothing to do
with linen (like beer) could be the representation of the value of the linen.
Next Message by Marlin is [292].
[296] Yoda: “20 yards of linen = 1 coat” should be read as saying, “1 coat is the value of 20
yards of linen.” This form of value gives the coat the position of being directly exchangeable
with the linen. When I read the opening phrase, I thought of it as a mathematical equation
but if I try to understand it like Marx, I would think of it as each commodity taking on
different roles. The linen on the left expresses its value in the coat on the right hand side.
Marx mentions that, “the coat serves as the material in which that value is expressed.” The
first commodity plays an active role, the second plays the passive role. Even though the two
commodities aren’t equal as it shows in a mathematical approach, the two commodities are
equivalant.
Hans: This formula is not as far removed from mathematics as you may think. Even in a mathematical formula,
the two sides must be different. The formula “a=a” is useless. Mathematicians would say: a mathematical theorem
must not pnly be true, it must also he nontrivial.
Next Message by Yoda is [298].
[316] Ida: 20 yards of linen is expressed as relative value, the linen is compared with the
value of the coat, not as its own absolute value. The coat, however, represents the value of
the linen because the linen is not useful unless it is made into a coat.
Hans: The first sentence is right but the second sentence is wrong. This is a widespread misunderstanding as you
will see when browsing through the archive.
Next Message by Ida is [317].
[321] Allison: The left hand side of the equation is being represented as a relative value.
The value of the 20 yards of linen is represented in the right hand side of the equation-the
coat. It is not saying that the value of the 20 yards of linen is equal to the value of one coat,
but rather that one coat is the value of the 20 yards of linen. Therefore the right hand side is
in the equivalent form-what is the value of the 20 yards of linen.
Hans: Yes. Say better: the coat is the representation, the form of the value of 20 yards of linen. Since abstract
labor does not exist as such but can only exist in the forms of certain concrete useful labors, the labor producing the
coat is here taken as the social incarnation of abstract human labor.
Message [321] referenced by [357]. Next Message by Allison is [322].
[328] Deadhead: In the equation “20 yards of linen = 1 coat” the right side of the equation,
the linen is expressed in the value of the coat, while the left side acts as the material in which
value is expressed. The value of the linen is represented as the relative value of the coat, so
it is in the relative form. The coat acts as the equivalent from which the value of the linen is
derived, so the right side is in the equivalent form.
Hans: The value of the linen is not derived from the coat. This formulation makes me wonder whether you are
making the same error as chp072 and alex072.
126 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
Message [328] referenced by [379]. Next Message by Deadhead is [433].
[332] Nena: If we look at the left and right hand side of this equation separately, the only
difference between them is the physical shape (the use-value) of the commodities and their
quantity. But as we put the equal sign between them, the left hand side (20 yards of linen)
does not express its use-value again, in instead, expresses its value in the coat by comparing
with the value of the coat. And the right hand side (1 coat), not again expresses one unit
of coat itself (its use-value), but the value (the relative value) of 20 yards of linen. Marx
argued that the left hand side commodity (20 yards of linen) play an active role, its value is
expressed in a relative form. But the right hand side commodity plays a passive role, and its
value is expressed in the equivalent form. Although we can rewrite (invert) the equation as
“1 coat = 20 yards of linen”, but the expression of these two equations are different. The first
one means “20 yards of linen is worth as much as 1 coat”. We try to use the value of coat to
express the value of the linen. But the second equation means “1 coat is worth as much as
20 yards of linen”, and, we use the value of linen to express the value of coat.
Hans: Very good. Just one small correction. We are not using the value of the coat to express the value of the
linen, but we are using the use value of the coat to express the value of the linen.
You wrote “we try to use” instead to “we use”, and you are very right here. The expression of the value of
something in one different us value is a very incomplete (Marx calls it “deficient”) expression of the value of
something. The Section shows how this evolves into the much more appropriate expression of value in money.
Next Message by Nena is [335].
[340] Sammy: 20 yards of linen, the left side, is the active commodity for which a value
is to be attached. Marx calls this the relative form. 1 coat, the right side, is a commodity the
value of the linen is to be given in. This is the passive commodity Marx calls the relative
value.
Hans: You mean, the equivalent form.
The fact that a coat was chosen is not important, we could have chosen cheeseburgers or
any commodity other than linen to express the value of the linen.
Hans: Good!
Message [340] referenced by [404]. Next Message by Sammy is [488].
[352] Chp: The left side of the equation represents the raw materials that make up the
right side. I don’t feel that this equation is complete. It does not take into consideration the
process the linen goes through in becoming the coat. Granted the coat represents the value
of the linen, but it is worth more because of the transformation it has gone through which
makes it more useful in the form of a coat than in its original form. The right side represents
the potential of the left, not its value.
Hans: See [267]. You have the same assignment as Alex.
Message [352] referenced by [379]. Next Message by Chp is [388].
[524] Makarios: The difference between the two sides of the equation are the forms of
value that each side represents. The left hand side (20 yards of linen) represents the relative
form of value, while the right hand side (1 coat) represents the equivalent form of value. Or,
in other words, the 20 yards of linen takes, as Marx puts it, an active role, in that it is being
equated to some other commodity as a representation of its own value. The 1 coat, on the
other hand, takes a passive role, in that it merely acts as the commodity that the 20 yards of
linen are being equated to.
Hans: The purpose of this question was not primarily to check whether you had read the text, but whether you had
understood the text and could explain it your own words to a layman who has not read Marx.

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 127
Next Message by Makarios is [525].
[547] Sms: The difference between the left hand side and the right hand side of the
equation is that Marx is saying 20 yards of linen is worth 1 coat. In other words, the coat is
the equivalent of 20 yards of linen.
Hans: The word “equivalent” means: of equal value. Doesn’t this mean coat and linen, in terms of value, are
exactly the same? Couldn’t one reverse this equation and it still would say the same thing?
(datestring)Mon, 6 Feb 1995 17:10:37 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) Dr. Ehrbar: When Marx
states 20 yards of linen equals 1 coat, does he mean 1 coat can be created from 20 yards of
linen, or that 20 yards of linen will exchange for 1 coat. I think that Marx discussed this
somewhere, however I can’t seem to locate where. Also, why does Marx think that this is
such an important concept, that he pays so much attention to it? It would seem to me that 1
oz of gold is worth $35, and that $35 is worth 1 oz oz of gold.
Hans: I guess you did notice yourself that you have to have to do some more work on this text. I think browsing
in the archive will help too. Don’t underestimate what it takes to catch up.
(datestring)Tue, 7 Feb 1995 08:40:25 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) Dr. Ehrbar: I think that I
am getting a grasp of how you want us to answer our questions–from Marx’s point of view,
not our own subjective point of view. Sorry, I was under the wrong assumption. I still have
not been able to get onto the archive from my modem, but will spend a considerable amount
of time on campus tonight going through the archive in an attempt to get caught-up. Thank
you for your input.
Next Message by Sms is [610].
[675] Sinikka: Question 72: “20 yards of linen = 1 coat” Left side: 20 yards of linen
could have been used to make 2 pair of slacks, or 1 jacket and 1 pair of slacks, etc. Right
side: The 20 yards of linen was used to make 1 coat.
Hans: No, this is not it. This was a common misunderstanding, as you will see when you go through the archive.
Next Message by Sinikka is [676].
[883] Slrrjk: The left hand side of the equation is the active side of the equation and the
right hand side is the passive side. This means that the left side is being expressed in the
right side of the equation. The left side is being compared to the value of the coat. The 20
yds of linen are relative and the coat is their equivalent form. They are not equivalent, one
(the right side) is just an expression of the other (the 20 yds of linen).
Hans: I don’t like this answer that much. Look what I said about this in the archive, for instance the remarks I
made to [248]
Next Message by Slrrjk is [1002].
[995] Mikey: Left Hand side of the equation is relative to ( 20yds of linen ) right hand
side ( coat ) in this example the linen expresses it value in the coat and coat is the material
in which value is expressed.
Hans: This is what Marx said. But I wanted you to explain in your own words what this means. Imagine you had
to explain this to your little sister.
Next Message by Mikey is [996].
Question 73 is 81 in 1995ut, 84 in 1996sp, 85 in 1996ut, 91 in 1997WI, 94 in 1997sp, 89
in 1997ut, 148 in 2004fa, and 172 in 2008SP:
Question 73 Can one say the coat symbolizes the value of the linen?
128 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
[200] Ann: When looking at this in terms of human labor power, Marx states that they
are both produced by “human brains, muscles, nerves, hands, etc.” So you can view them
in the same terms and say that the coat can symbolize the value of linen. But when looking
at this qualitatively, one can not say that the coat symbolizes the value of the linen because
the process at which they are produced, such as “tailoring and weaving” are different and
therefore cannot compare the two.
Hans: You missed the whole point of the question.
(datestring)Sat, 28 Jan 1995 12:57:02 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) Yes, one can say that the
coat symbolizes the value of the linen. In order for the coat to express its value it must
be compared against other forms of useful labor. Even though the coat and the linen have
different forms of useful labor they can be compared to one another because they both have
value. So, the coat symbolizes the value of the linen by comparing its forms of useful labor
to the useful labor from the linen.
Hans: “In order for the coat to express its value” – You should say here: “In order for the linen to express its
value.” The coat is passive here. The point of the question was really a minor one (and I apologize for my harsh
tone above): The coat is more than a symbol of the value of the linen because it is itself something of value.
Next Message by Ann is [202].
[219] Ranger: The coat is not really a “symbol” of the value of linen. However, one could
say that the value of linen is expressed in terms of the coat. The commodity (the coat) is
used to express the value of the linen. Through this expression the value of the linen can be
recognized because it is expressed in the terms of a coat.
Hans: This is right, but why do you say the coat is not a symbol of the value of the linen?
Message [219] referenced by [222]. Next Message by Ranger is [223].
[224] Civic: Marx said in 139:6 that “the coat serves as the material in which that value is
expressed” (the value the linen expresses due to the coat.)
Hans: “Due to the coat”. Oops. You seem to think that the coat expresses the value of the linen because linen itself
does not have use value for final consumption, but when made into coats then linen is very useful. This is not the
right interpretation! I say this in the last paragraph before the Relative Form of Value title, between Questions 77
and 78. Despite the completely different framework than that of Marx much of what you say in what follows is
right:
The value of the linen is expressed through the coat. It is relative value because it is
relative to the coat. The coat however, is the equivalent form. Question 73 asked if this
equivalent form is the symbol of the value of the coat.
Hans: (I take it you mean “of the linen”)
I think it is, but I would add that it is an expression of this relationship, and not simply
just a symbol.
Hans: Hooray, you got this one right. The coat is not a symbol of the value of the linen because it has itself value.
The coat’s use value expresses the value of the linen.
The linen can only show value if it is expressed in terms of something else. The value
of the coat and linen here in this illustration show a symbiotic relationship, the value of the
linen exists because of the coat,
Hans: Now here it shows up again that you are in a completely different paradigm than Marx. Talking about
Marx’s kind of value, it is not a matter of existence, but of form, of expression.
(I’m not sure if the reciprocal holds true, I’ll have to think about it more).
Hans: Marx’s value is completely independent of use values, therfore everything can be switched around.

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 129
Marx calls this expression relative value, because it is relative or contingent upon something
else.
Hans: Relative, yes. Contingent on, i.e., dependent on, no.
In mathematical terms the coat and linen are on opposite sides of an equation. The coat is
an expression, in some form, of the value of the linen. I’m not sure if symbol is the correct
word for my mathematical equation, I like expression better.
Message [224] referenced by [379]. Next Message by Civic is [299].
[233] Despain: Both ann and ranger reply and argue that the coat is not a symbol of the
value of the linen. I thought maybe I could add something about this question and section of
Capital. First, it must be remembered that chapter one is speaking in value terms. It seems
that the word symbolized somehow threw students off of the idea of value. Or maybe the
question could read does the “value” of the coat symbolize the value of the linen. For Marx
the answer is unambiguously yes.
Hans: No, it is not. The value of the coat is as invisible as that of the linen, it cannot symbolize anything. Rather,
the use value of the coat represents the value of the linen. I wrote “represents” instead of “symbolizes” because the
coat is a value itself. I.e., the coat is more than a symbol for the value of the linen.
Value for Marx, is of course the “abstract labor socially necessary,” hence the coat is
acting as some kind mirror of value (not however for their use-values). In fact any commodity
that held the position of the coat would perform as this mirror of value. My mirror
analogy proves to illustrate a further point concerning the positions of passivity and active
with regards to the relative and equivalent functions. For example, if you are admiring yourself
in the mirror, you are the one that is actively viewing yourself, spinning or flipping
your hair. This active and passive role becomes important especially for the function of the
money-form of value. Nonetheless, the issue here is to try to think in terms of value, not in
the particular commodities being discussed. (datestring)Wed, 25 Jan 1995 13:20:29 -0700
(MST)(/datestring) In a past posting I attempted to re-frame question 73 which proved to add
more to the confusion, instead of helping clarify the issue, as Ehrbar correctly points out.
It seemed to me that students were misled, because they were not thinking in value terms.
Thus, I attempted to insert the term “value” in the question to make this point. However,
as Ehrbar argues, the value remains “invisible,” thus, my re-formulation was incorrect. My
purpose was to demonstrate that when one compares two commodities, with different uses,
and in different quantities, i.e.: x commodity A = y commodity B, where x does not equal
y and A does not equal B, it seems that these two things cannot be equalized. Therefore,
there must be a third (implict) term, by which these two commodities can be compared, i.e.
Value. Similarly, in Ehrbar’s Annotations he refers to the geometric figures; the polygon
and the triangle. Whereby, we are able to compare these seemingly different shapes. What
allows us to compare the polygon and triangle. The answer is in reference to a third (implict)
term, i.e. their area. If a thing could not be put in this reference to space there would be no
reference to compare them. For example, the color red as no reference within space, hence,
no area, thus, cannot be compared to a triangle or polygon. Therefore, only because the coat
and linen both contain this implict and invisible third term, can they be compared and reflect
themselves to one another. I am still unsure why Ehrbar’s uses the term symbolizes. Maybe
he can explain further. Does the polygon symbolize the triangle?
Hans: You should have asked: do the triangles symbolize the area of the polygon? No, they do not. The triangles
are a representation of the area of the polygon. They are not a symbol of the area because they have area themselves.
130 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
First Message by Despain is [79].
[237] Frosty: Yes one can say the coat symbolizes the value of the linen. The linen by
itself has exchange-value but no use-value. It needs a commodity such as the coat, which
has use-value, to express its value. So, the linen expresses its value in the coat and the coat
serves as material in which value is expressed. When the linen is made into a coat, it has
use-value since the coat as a commodity has use-value.
Hans: Sorry, Frosty, but this is a complete misunderstanding of what Marx says. Perhaps Marx should better have
used a coat and so and so many pounds of potatoes. The relationship between the two which he describes has
nothing to do with their use values.
Message [237] referenced by [236], [267], and [379]. Next Message by Frosty is [270].
[262] Dubbel: Yes, I believe that the coat does symbolize the value of the linen. The
use value of the linen is expressed in the coat. The value of the two commodities, result
in the value of one single commodity. Marx expresses these values in two different forms
“relative” and “equivalent”. The coat represents the value of the linen. “The first commodity
plays a active role, the second a passive.”(pg(139) The linen represents the relative value and
the coat represents the equivalent. The value of the linen therefore is hidden in the coat.
Hans: You are using “value” here synonymously to “use value”. Marx never does that. Value and use value have
nothing in common.
Next Message by Dubbel is [274].
[292] Marlin: The value of the coat may be interchangeable with the linen, or their
exchange value equal, but the coat doesn’t symbolize the value of linen. One commodity
can not symbolize another, but rather express its value.
Hans: Instead of “The value of the coat may be interchangeable with the linen,” you apparently wanted to say:
“the coat may be interchangeable with the linen.”
Next Message by Marlin is [295].
[298] Yoda: After answering question 72, I would have to say that “yes” the coat does
symbolize the value of the linen for the reason that the value of the first commodity (linen) is
represented as relative value and is only compared with the value of the second commodity
(coat) and being that the inverse relationship in turn, implies a direct relationship between
the two.
Hans: But this is not the relationship of being a “symbol”.
Next Message by Yoda is [437].
[306] Zaskar: I don’t believe the coat symbolizes the value of the linen. It seems that
they are both being related to one another because they both have value. The coat doesn’t
symbolize the value of the linen it is merely expressed in terms of the value of the linen.
Hans: You mean, the linen is expressed in terms of the value of the coat?
But going back to your second sentence: they are both being related to one another. This relationship exists
socially before any individuals act on it (or on their perception of it).
Next Message by Zaskar is [309].
[307] Chance: Definitely not! Each possesses its own value. The coat expresses the
use-value embodied in the linen. Each item has its own value expressed in the human labor
hours. Therefore, the use-value of the coat symbolizes the use-value of the linen. As Marx
himself states, “As use-values, commodities differ above all in quality, while as exchangevalues
they can only differ in quantity, and therefore do not contain an atom of use-value.”
For me, use-value is an easier concept to grasp. In trading commodities, use-value is what
is considered. Value is a much more difficult concept to grasp.

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 131
Hans: The value of a thing consists in human labor hours. But these labor hours are invisible to anyone except the
one who performed this labor. They still need a social expression. You should therefore not say: “Each item has
its own value expressed in the human labor hours.” The value of the linen (i.e. the labor contained in the linen) is
expressed in something very tangible and visible to everyone, namely, the coat as a material thing, as a use value
(because the weaver who produced the linen is willing to give up the linen in exchange for a coat).
The question itself was a minor point: this expression is not a symbolic expression because the coat has value
itself, it is more than a symbol of value.
Next Message by Chance is [308].
[317] Ida: I would say no. The value of the coat in this instance does not exist, at least it
is not being examined. The coat has value in and of itself, but it is the linen which represents
the value of the coat. 20 yards of linen equals 1 coat doesn’t mean the value of 20 yards of
linen is one coat, but one coat is the value of 20 yards of linen.
Hans: We are not examining the value of the coat; the linen does that for us when it recognizes the kindred valuesoul
in the coat. But the linen’s willingness to trade places with the coat signals to us that the linen has value. In
this way the coat is an expression of the value of the linen. It is more than a symbol of the value of the linen, since
it has value itself.
Next Message by Ida is [318].
[320] Eddie: One can not say the coat symbolizes the value of the linen. I believe the
whole idea of Marx in this context was that the use-value of two items can not be compared
but the human labor power used to produce the two items is comparable. This is why in
Marx example the linen was x and the coat was 2x, the coat took 2x’s as long to make in
labor hours. A better expression would be to say the coat symbolizes the labor hours from
linen to a coat.
Hans: You are using the word “value” with the meaning “use value”. If you don’t get this straight, you will not
understand anything of the text.
Next Message by Eddie is [454].
[357] Asmith: The coat represents (physically embodies) the value of the linen. It is not
symbolic, or analogous to it. It expresses the value of the linen and of the other imputs that
make up the coat.
Hans: You have it right that it is not symbolic. But you, too, make the misunderstanding which almost the whole
class is suffering under. See my notes to [321].
Message [357] referenced by [379]. Next Message by Asmith is [359].
[366] Scarlett: I don’t think so. It would make more sense to say the value of the coat is
equal to the value of the linen as you did before. To say that something like money, which
has no intrinsic utility, but is used to exchange for commodities, represents the value of the
linen would be more logical to me. The coat has a value that is relative to the linen as well
as potatoes, gold, corn, and any other commodity. Therefore, it cannot really symbolize the
value of the linen.
Hans: You don’t want to say that the coat represents the value of the linen because one particular use value is not
a very good representation of value, money would be much better. You are completely right; the whole purpose of
Section 3 is to go from this very primitive expression of value to a more complete one.
Next Message by Scarlett is [367].
Question 74 is 82 in 1995ut and 90 in 1997ut:
Question 74 Compare the value expression in the Simple form of value with the example in
Section 1.1 of measuring rectilinear figures using triangles (127:3), and with the weighing
illustration (148:3/o). Which of the two, coat or linen, takes the place of the triangles or
normed weights?
132 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
[223] Ranger: The coat takes the place of the triangles or normed weights. To derive
the area of a octagon, the octagon is separated into triangles. The area of the triangles can
be found by using the formula: 0.5*(base*height) The area of the octagon is then found by
summing the areas of the triangles.
Likewise, to be able to find the value of linen it must be expressed in something that is
recognizable, like a coat. In this way the value of the linen is easier to derive because it has
been expressed in terms of a coat. As an octagon is expressed in terms of triangles, linen can
be expressed in terms of a coat.
Hans: Not the octagon itself but the area of the octagon is expressed in terms of triangles, and likewise not the
linen itself but the value of the linen is expressed in terms of coats. You have this right everywhere except in the
last sentence.
Next Message by Ranger is [232].
Question 75 is 83 in 1995ut:
Question 75 If commodity producer P exchanges his commodity A against Q’s commodity
B, which commodity is then in the relative form of value, and which in the equivalent form
of value?
[322] Allison: In this case Q’s commodity B symbolizes the value of P’s commodity A.
Therefore commodity A is in the relative form of value and commodity B is in the equivalent
form of value. Because I have exchanged A in return for B, then A’s value is represented by
the commodity B. (kind of a tongue twister to read...sorry)
Hans: Right.
Next Message by Allison is [324].
Question 76 is 84 in 1995ut, 86 in 1996sp, 87 in 1996ut, 93 in 1997WI, 96 in 1997sp, 91
in 1997ut, and 150 in 2004fa:
Question 76 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 below). Describe
exactly what is meant by this phrase in the situation you chose.
[222] Ghant: I believe these people are saying that due to the varying characteristics
differences of dis-similiar things, they can’t be expressed in terms of anything else. For
example, take the phrase I am I. The person who says this is focusing on what makes them
an individual. They are asserting their singularity of form and being. They are avoiding
comparison to another person, which would lead to an implied connection to that person.
Hans: Some of these phrases have a different meaning than others. It would therefore have been more convincing
if you had described a situation in which someone says: I am I.
(datestring)24 Jan 95 10:17:53 MS(/datestring) In your response to my answer to question
76:
Hans: ehrbar¿ It would therefore have been more convincing if you had ehrbar¿ described a situation in which
someone says: I am I.
I was using I am I as the example. Please note in my text: For example, take the phrase I
am I. The person who says this

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 133
Hans: But you did not describe a concrete situation in which someone says “I am I.” Compare [235]. and [219]..(is
this right, it originally said 72)
(datestring)24 Jan 95 13:57:47 MS(/datestring) A concrete situation, huh? Okay here
goes... I am a person who takes great pride in thinking for himself. I live life with a philosophy
that I have created on my own, not with one that came shrink-wrapped by society
(which is not to say I am way out in left field). I have taken parts of other philosophies
that I find accurate and useful. I have ended up being what I describe as a pragmatic realist.
In all actuality, politically I am a moderate democrat and economically I am a capitalist
who believes that the government must provide certain things, such as the military, welfare
programs, etc. When I use the phrase I am I, I am stating my independence from the rest
of humanity, physically, emotionally, spiritually, and intellectually. I use my physical body,
which is not common to anyone else, to prove my dis-connection on the physical plane. If
I am speaking of my singularity of being, I am reinforcing that I am not replaceable, that
is to say no one is identical to me, and no one could ever be identical to me. They may
resemble me, or even think and say similiar things to what I think and say, but they will
never replicate my state of being enough to be me. To be identified with another person is
to be somehow connected to that person. My traits are identifiable because other persons
give a frame of reference from which to judge my characteristics. They provide the mirror
that was spoken of in the text. In this context, when I use the phrase I am I, it is with the
intention of emphasizing my own individuality, apart from those who are my mirror. When
Marx uses one commodity to value another commodity, he is implying that they have something
in common, no matter how different the two commodities may be. In the same vein,
if I am described through comparison to another person, there is an implied commonality or
connection between us, one that I may wish to avoid. I’ll offer an example, “He’s a liberal”
implies a connection between me and a large societal group. I may not want to be associated
with this group, for whatever reason, probably pride. I state “I am me, I am not like them,
my beliefs do not have the same origin as their beliefs.” I am insisting that the other person
in this exchange to consider me apart from his self-defined group, called liberals. Of course
this all takes place within the context of the “mirror”, without which the statement “I am I”
would not be necessary, let alone spoken.
Hans: Thank you for the frank essay, which gives us an excellent example. As you make clear in this essay, your
statement: I am I means something very similar to the statement “20 yards of linen = 20 yards of linen” used by
Marx. It is the opposite of being lumped together with others (other commodities of equal value, or other human
beings with similar beliefs).
Message [222] referenced by [295]. Next Message by Ghant is [712].
[232] Ranger: Such a statement may be given by someone who is not satisfied by the value
the market has placed on a commodity. For example, I have an older computer that has a 386
chip, 2 MB of RAM, and a 40 MB hard drive. I decide to try to trade my “older” computer
for a new model that has a Pentium chip, 10 MB of RAM, and a 520 MB hard drive. The
computer salesman only offers me $100 for my “older” computer when I was expecting
$500. I refuse the salesman’s offer and keep the old computer because, “a computer is a
computer,” and the “older” computer processes data too! The statement in question 76 is not
an expression of value. Such phrases assume that commodities possess value independently
and are not expressed in terms of something else. Value is expressed only in the terms of
another commodity that stands equal to it.
134 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
Hans: The statement “a computer is a computer” (especially with the addition “the old computer processes data
too”) means here: the use values of the old and the new computer are about the same, one computer is like the other
computer. You really don’t need computers for those bells and whistles, you need them for data processing.
Also see [235].
Message [232] referenced by [235]. Next Message by Ranger is [398].
[235] Telemark: When I encounter statements such as these, it seems that an individual
is trying to characterize a group of thing(s) / individuals into a specific and similar category.
ie... On a recent telemark/winter camp outing I met a real “know-it-all” who was actually
trying to be kind when he stated “oh skis are skis.” I tried to explain that the pair of skis
which I had rented for this specific trip were needed for the terrain we would encounter, he
responded again, “it wasn’t necessary, A ski is a ski (referring to a complete ski package
boots, poles, etc.) I could ski this with cross country skis. You didn’t need to go out and
spend more money just to rent a little better ski.” At the time I thought what a silly statement
and little else to refut his statement. My skis were a cheap pair of hand me down skis a friend
gave me because he had got me interested in telemarking... Now as I think and analyze his
blatant and ignorant remark, I spent an extra fifteen dollars for the weekend so that I could
have skis properly waxed and sharpened, unlike mine that are contrasted as “rock” skis. My
poles would have been too short for the depth of virgin snow experienced. My boots were
of moderate strength, nothing to brag about. Yet, my “skis” would have worked just as good
as any other (In his mind). He seemed to beleive this as he spoke the words, but I know if
I would have taken him home to the small shed in which I keep the skis, he wouldn’t have
(with a right mind) simply trade my inferior package, for his out of the kindness of his heart.
Hans: Very similar situation as in [232] Should we spend money to get the fancier version of the same use value if
the old one might do as well? For both of you it seems to be a very emotional issue. You see all this wealth around
you, from which you are excluded. But instead of seeing it this way you torment yourself: did I make the right
decision? And then, by the continuous bombardment of advertisement, we are not even certain any more about
what we really need. One more reason to direct this energy self-destructively inward instead of confronting the
social realities.
Message [235] referenced by [222] and [232]. Next Message by Telemark is [277].
[256] Braydon: Recently my husband, David, and I were grocery shopping and in the
produce section looking at the apples. I am very picky about my apples and David doesn’t
care one way or another. After spending at least 5 minutes squeezing and sniffing the fruit
to discover which ones were the crunchiest and most flavorful, David said “an apple is an
apple! Get them and come on!” In that situation, according to my husband, that statement
meant apples are all alike. Any apple will always taste like an apple. In fact, my father used
to say, being a father of many girls and having to endure long trips to the mall, “shoes are
shoes!” Meaning they all have the same purpose no matter what they looked like.
Hans: This is the answer to the question. These are very good examples. There is no need to make the link to
“value” as you are trying below. These were only examples showing that also in everyday language, seemingly
tautological statements are not meaningless but have a meaning.
Well, The crunchiest and most tastiest apples have more value to me than they do for my
husband. No matter the labor or time involved in growing them and the tree that produces
those apples has more value than one that produces soft bland tasting apples. Where does
relative value come in? Does the labor and design involved in creating the best looking shoe
constitute relative value? For some and not for others crunchy apples and pretty shoes have
more value. Thus, to some, apples are not apples!

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 135
Hans: On re-reading this submission in connection with your other submissions, it seems you are trying to argue
that value comes from use value, not from labor time – because just putting in labor time does not guarantee crunchy
apples, and this is what you value a lot. You are using here the word “value” for a different concept than what Marx
denotes by the same word “value”.
Next Message by Braydon is [266].
[289] Ledzep: To answer this question I am going to use the expression “a buck is a
buck”. This is an expression of value, one buck = one buck. The phrase identifies a buck
to be the same/have the same value no matter who posesses it or where it is. It is a way for
the buck to be identified with another buck, defining what a buck is, not what is isn’t. It is a
statement of truth. There is no contradiction. It is not nonsensical.
Hans: I wish you had told me a little story in which someone says: “a buck is a buck”, instead of reasoning in
the abstract. I think the result would be that the interpretation you are giving here what you think it means may be
revised.
Next Message by Ledzep is [290].
[295] Marlin: I believe when one says I am I, it is meant that although in many ways
they are similar to others, that they are unique and cannot be compared to or exchanged with
another. The similarity merely comes from form or the fact that each human is a member of
the same species. Aside from those characteristics, we each have our own distinctive traits
which cannot be traded or interchanged with another.
Hans: Yes exactly. This can be taken as a good commentary to [222].
Next Message by Marlin is [368].
[313] Pegasus: I was talking to a friend of mine the other day about my car and how its
falling apart. He told me that “a car is a car” and as long as it served its purpose it shouldn’t
really matter if the car was a bad one. In some sense I agree. As a student I would not be
able to afford a better, more expensive car. It does its job, and that should be enough (for
the moment). The basic function of a car is the same for all cars. At the same time, a car
is not just a car. Different vehicles cater to a number of individual tastes. Also, there is a
vast difference between owning a car that can break down on you any minute and owning a
car that runs well. I cannot, for instance, go on long trips with my car out of fear that it will
break down. This takes away some of the function of the car. Therefore, I would argue that
a car is not just a car....
Hans: The point of this exercise was to show that the utterance “a car is a car” means something and is not merely
a tautology – not that it is a correct statement.
Next Message by Pegasus is [315].
[335] Nena: Think about an interesting situation: Whenever we have an argument with
someone, we said the sentence “ I am I” all the time. For example, a boy said to his girl
friend: “Why are you always angry at me for staring at other girls, it’s not a big deal, other
boys do that too. Why don’t their girl friends be angry.” And the girl yield to him: “I am
I, don’t compare me with another girl, if you still want to do this, find yourself a new girl
friend.” I think, the reason why the girl said “I am I...” here, is trying to express that she is
a unique person, a special one, and she is different from others and can’t be compared with
any other girls. And since “she is she”, she is not going to change her attitude towards her
boyfriend’s staring at other girls. Here, the sentence “I am I” means “I am myself but no
one else”. Here, we relate this to the argument of Marx: “A coat is a coat” means that the
coat is the coat itself (only the use-value of a coat) but nothing else. We can’t use “a coat” to
136 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
express the value of a coat. So, the sentence “ a coat is a coat” actually means nothing about
the exchange value but its use-value.
Hans: Excellent!
Next Message by Nena is [345].
[360] Tsunami: I find tautologies particularly appealing as end-within-itself: I am because
I am. Using Hegel’s arguments about the ideal and abstract (of which, admittedly, I know
very little and understand even less), if I were to say “a pair of shoes is a pair of shoes,” I
would mean the following, in the following situation. I am walking through a flooded street
and my feet are bare. I want a pair of shoes, preferably rainshoes so my feet won’t get so wet.
I spot a pair of shoes on a park bench. They fit me just fine, but instead of being galoshes,
they are a pair of ballet shoes. “Oh well,” I think to myself, “a pair of shoes is a pair of
shoes.” The ballet shoes may not fit the IDEAL I have of what a pair of shoes should mean
or what the image of a pair of shoes should be, but at least I have something I can cover my
feet with. I hope this is explanation is what you were asking for.
Hans: Yes, very good.
Next Message by Tsunami is [636].
[405] Oregon: Taking the phrase “i am I” to define “I” by yourself would not be cleary
accurate. The value or definition of I, can be better understood be seeing the value in another
person. “What is my value in Gino’s life” My value is seen in relation to another commodity.
I as a person would be the hidden value “active role” while my value in Gino would be a
passive role.
Hans: Very nice example: linen and coat are like two co-dependent individuals.
Next Message by Oregon is [465].
[481] Stalin: When one says a car is a car, they are saying that cars are much the same,
but different. In other words if one looks at many different cars, they are much the same, but
are unique in their own different ways; and therefore cannot be traded as equals.
Hans: I don’t think they mean that the cars cannot be traded, I think they are rather saying that there is no need to
trade cars. If one has one then one has them all.
Next Message by Stalin is [483].
[676] Sinikka: Question 76: “A pair of shoes is a pair of shoes.” A pair of shoes is
footwear. Also a pair of boots is footwear, but a pair of shoes is not a pair of boots; a pair of
shoes is a pair of shoes.
Hans: You are not explaining what the sentence: “a pair of shoes is a pair of shoes” means in this context. Let me
take a stab at it: here the second “pair of shoes” is an abbreviation for: non-boot-like footwear (i.e., according to
what the speaker has in mind, the cut is lower, it is not so heavy duty and the emphasis is more on how dressy it is,
etc).
Next Message by Sinikka is [677].
Question 79 is 101 in 1998WI, 109 in 1999SP, 124 in 2001fa, 183 in 2008SP, 181 in
2008fa, 190 in 2009fa, and 212 in 2012fa:
Question 79 What does the qualitative equation “linen = coat” tell us about the coat?
about the linen?
[324] Allison: The coat is where the value exists, or ‘the material embodiment of value’
in the equation linen = coat. The linen is still a physical object but because it is now involved
in this relationship it now takes on value, value that can be expressed in terms of the
second commodity in the relationship – the coat. In this sense the value is not socially {1}

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 137
determined but rather socially {2} determined...by the interpersonal interactions and contact
of the commodities themselves.
Hans: Excellent! This pulling up of the deeper social {1} level to the social {2} plane of interactions is a very good
observation which I will take over into my Annotations. This is what Marx means with “expression of value”.
I was already very impressed with [81]. You have an excellent understanding of what is going on.
Message [324] referenced by [2008SP:324]. Next Message by Allison is [446].
Question 80 is 87 in 1995ut, 89 in 1996sp, and 95 in 1997ut:
Question 80 Marx gave here a mistaken example of emergence. Give examples where there
is indeed emergence.
[362] Marinda: What is emergence? I have some idea of what is meant by the word, but
I’d like to know Ehrbar’s definition. Marx’ example is obscure, but I ended up more confused
after reading the annotation. Is something emergent if its properties are not explainable /
understandable / predictable on the basis of (what we think we know about) its component
parts?
Hans: Right, but you can forget about the explain, understand, and predict. A structure is emergent if is properties
do not stem from those of its component parts. The non-MI approch to social sciences which is closest to what
Marx was using, for instance, claims that social relations do not follow from interpersonal relations but have their
own reality. Society is like an animal with which we individuals live in symbiosis. (Don’t let the fact confuse you
that the bodily existence of this animal consists of what we all are doing.)
If so, my examples are weather and art. Art (and all other aspects of culture) is commonly
cited as a human behavior that is not expected to occur based only on the chemistry, biology
and evolution of humans.
Hans: Would you expect it to occur that humans are self-conscious? That dogs bark? Tell me how this is founded
in the chemistry and biology of dogs.
If I seem a little sceptical, it’s because I think that “emergence” is too often invoked
whenever something unknown, difficult, puzzling, contradictory or mysterious appears on a
“group level.” For instance, culture is sometimes claimed to have “raised us apart from other
animals” or “separated us from nature” so that humans are really special and different and
don’t behave the way that other animals do.
Hans: In my mind, emergence finally gets us away from that athropocentrism which knows only one example of
emergence, and that is human consciousness. Things like this happen all the time. The process of creation of the
world is not yet finished.
I look around and say What? As we evolved the capacity for culture, we must have been
using that capacity. Those who had more capacity or used it more fully must have had some
real reproductive advantage (although likely imperceptable within any single generation.)
This selective advantage must have continued for well over a million years, based on the
time it took for the cranial expansion, (although culture is not based only on brain size.) So,
what were we using culture for? For things that would give an individual (and immediate
relatives) some tangible benefits that translate on average into reproduction=self-interest.
Hans: I do not think this is the test whether something is emergent or not. If you agree with me that the human
species could, under other circumstances, have evolved without developing culture, then you are conceding the
possibility that it was emergent.
So, culture cannot separate us from the rest of biology. Culture is an adaptation which
was obviously successful for our ancestors, just as grasping hands are adaptive for arboreal
138 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
primates. This does not mean that I claim to explain everything about every culture, I don’t
think anyone can. Many things in the world are indeed puzzling. But I haven’t seen yet how
“emergence” helps.
Hans: While you busy yourself with the (in my view hopeless) task of developing the super-science which can
explain everything from the atom to Leonardo da Vinci, I will give you a few more examples which seem to
indicate to me that there is something like emergence.
This would allow us to sustain that humans have a free will. It explains the division of science into particular
sciences: biology, psychology, sociology, etc. Science is emergent from facts.
The issue whether the accumulation drive of capital is emergent from individual motivations, and how deeply
entrenched the mechanisms are which force the world economy to remain on this route, may very soon become a
life-and-death issue for the human species.
Next Message by Marinda is [408].
Question 83 is 90 in 1995ut, 92 in 1996sp, and 94 in 1996ut:
Question 83 Have we gotten away from this personality cult in a modern democracy?
[192] Renegade: We have not gotten away from the personality cult in modern democracy.
I think that what Marx is pointing out could be very Jungian in nature. I suppose that we
could have archetypical templates buried somewhere deep in our collective consciousness
that yearns for fulfillment. Even in democracy, from our modern myth, as seen in television,
movies, and literature, we crave the male rescuer–although the female is starting to emerge.
We want Rambo do it all for us–our modern mythology is not one where the masses get out
and make it happen. We are all helpless sheep waiting for a savior. If taken a step further–
in a Weberian sense there will always be those few who are charismatic individuals and
due to some kind of economic hardship become leaders and fulfill a function for the other
disenfranchised. History is full of them–Muhammed, Moses, and Joseph Smith to name a
few. A cult then forms around the character and it moves out–but after a few generations it
has become what it rebelled against in the first place. These occurences happen in modern
democracy all the time–capitalistic democracy that is. An interesting study would be to
see if the U.S. has more than its fair share of David Quoreshes and Jim Jones in the world
than a a stable socialist country. These cult figures are by no means democratic in nature;
they tend to be authoritarian and absolute. The followers are by no means trying to change
their circumstances by the democratic process that this country has provided for–perhaps it
doesn’t work and this is what results.
Hans: I think you would be disappointed if you were to look at the late “really existing socialism.” But perhaps
you mean by “stable socialist society” something which does not yet exist.
It is important that you qualify the modern democratic societies as “capitalistic democracies.” The democratic
process that this country has provided for is not an instrument for changing society which is just sitting there and
waiting until someone uses it.
Next Message by Renegade is [658].
[202] Ann: I certainly believe that image obsessions are thriving in modern society. In
our society where food is plenty the image to obtain is thinness, because we do not value
the existance of food as say a third world country would. The images that women and men
are supposed to obtain are spread across magazines and televisions and are resulting in a
low self image for many who cannot not achieve what is displayed. Thinness is not the
only image that thrives in mankind. As Marx states, (page 142:3) “some men count for
more when inside a gold-braided uniform than they do otherwise.” To obtain richness in our

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 139
society can be more thrived for than thinness and beauty. Status symbols are very important
in our society. Name brand clothing and food is more of a status symbol than generic brands.
I believe that obtaining beauty, thinness and riches in our society are thrived for because it
symbolizes hard work and the feeling of accomplishment and therfore results in good self
worth.
Hans: These obsessions are not quite the same thing as the personality cult Marx uses as an example in his text.
Next Message by Ann is [204].
[259] Rangers: The United States as a modern democratic society has not departed from
personality cults. A clear example of this would be what American women are supposed to
be; thin, hair always perfect, and make-up always on. Basically girls should look like the
“Cover Girl” model, because “Cover Girl” and other cosmetic companies want them to buy
their products. An another example is women personality traits, when a woman is aggressive
she is thought of as a XXXXX (sounds like witch). But when a man is aggresive he is looked
at as a go-getter.
Hans: I think this stretches a little bit the concept of “personality cult” but it is certainly related.
Next Message by Rangers is [400].
[268] Alex: Have we gotten away from this personality cult in a modern democracy?
Although, I believe that we are always trying to move away from this sort of labeling, or
predisposing, I think that we have not yet gotten away from the personality cult spoken of. It
does take people a long time to do the internal adjusting neccessary when changes are made.
One example is O.J. simpson, nobody thought that Celebreties where supposed to get in big
trouble, and it is hard for many people to believe that O.J. is possibly guilty of what he is
accused of. (maybe dumb example ?)
Hans: No, this is a very good example.
Next Message by Alex is [269].
[277] Telemark: Absolutely not. Trends, styles and idealistic thought processes continue
to dominate our society in many relevant ways. Dictating to us “what we should be”, how
we should act, what we must wear, to what social functions and groups we must affiliate ourselves
with in order to be a significant individual in the eyes of society. Unfortunately this
seems to be the trend of the past and today. From studying Marx I understand that he disagreed
with such norms in society. His life and ideals disagreed with such a setting in which
money, status and power meant acceptance and in fact Marx held firm in his understanding
even through rejection, resentment and expulsion from numerous European countries for
negating “societal norms” of economic and philosophical ideas of the day. Indeed financial
poverty much of his life did not slow or deter his conviction to his ethical viewpoints.
Hans: Ok.
Next Message by Telemark is [278].
[323] Hippie: Well, yes and no. First, no. Americans have a certain expectation of
what certain people should look like. We like tall, white men for president. It will be no
time soon that a hispanic, black, or female will be elected to office. People come to expect
certain characteristics in people who hold certain jobs. We want our ski instructor to look
healthy and fit, and we want our chefs a little more robust, as we expect they like to eat a
lot. History shows that a short guy with a female running mate, (Mondale/Ferraro), doesn’t
do well running for president. Neither did Jesse Jackson. On the other hand, we are getting
a lot better. More and more we see people doing jobs and holding titles that simply would
140 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
not have happened fifty years ago. Women in the army, on the police force, figting fires,
etc. Americans are constantly becoming more open-minded, but we still have a way to go.
Our standards do change with time, the Venus de milo would be viewed as a little fat today.
There definitely is a personality cult, but not with as much intensity as it used to have.
Hans: Good examples.
Next Message by Hippie is [442].
Question 86 is 93 in 1995ut and 106 in 1997sp:
Question 86 Is the reference to the Hebrew here an antisemitic slip?
[319] Marinda: It may look like it to us, but Marx is at least alluding to the well-known
(stereotyped but nontheless partly true) fact that European Jews were frequently merchants
and bankers. I think that people were and are often resentful of anyone rich or anyone
competing with one’s own business or bank. Of course, some of the reasons why Jews were
not farmers includes the fact that sometimes Jews were not allowed to own land and that
“good christians” were sometimes prohibited by a church from charging interest. Now of
course, it is often considered impolite to refer to stereotypes, especially when they have
acquired derogatory implications. Marx’ remark is a rather gratuitous reference in that it
does not further his analogy - he offers no example of Hebrew vocabulary that more precisely
expresses capitalist ideas or deals with business than, say, English does.
Hans: This last point is a good observation. I think it was a joke which we nowadays would no longer find funny,
even if it comes from someone who himself is of Jewish descent, and whose moral credentials are impeccable.
Next Message by Marinda is [362].
Question 87 is 103 in 1997WI:
Question 87 Henry IV said: “Paris vaut bien une messe” (Paris is worth a mass). Is Paris
in the relative or the equivalent form of value?
[275] Dubbel: I believe that Paris is in the equivalent form of value. As a commodity’s
relative form, like the linen, which results in the equivalent form of the coat. Paris is composed
of many different characteristics in which their values are expressed, by the city of
Paris. So the collaboration of these varied relative forms of value create Paris as a whole,
which results as Paris in its equivalent form of value. This equivalent form of value is Paris’s
identity as a major city. This identity is created by the many different commodities that gave
Paris its identity as a city equivalent to other cities in the world.
Hans: “a mass” is not “a lot” but it stands for the roman-catholic church service.
Next Message by Dubbel is [409].
[379] Eagle: Paris is in the equivalent form. He is saying that Paris is the mass, or simply
speaking, Paris=the mass. The mass would be the relative form.
Hans: But in 20 yards of linen = one coat, the lefthand side is the relative and the righthand side the equivalent
form. (I do not say that your conclusion is wrong, I only say that your argument does not seem to hold.)
(datestring)Tue, 7 Feb 1995 21:07:57 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) After re-reading the analogy
you have included, I can see my error. It would make more sense to write the mass=Paris
because the mass is what makes up Paris Much like 20 yards of linen make up one coat.
Hans: I agree with you that written as a formula parallel to Marx’s coat and linen formulas, Henry’s statement
should read the mass=Paris. But the reason you are bringing is still that big and widespread misunderstanding

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 141
about the coat representing the value of the linen because linen which is not made into a coat does not give utility,
see [224], [236], [237], [253], [267], [328], [339], [352], and [357].
Next Message by Eagle is [380].
Question 88 is 95 in 1995ut, 99 in 1996ut, 109 in 1998WI, 116 in 1999SP, and 131 in
2001fa:
Question 88 What does Marx mean by the remark in the footnote to 144:1, that humans are
not born with a mirror in their hands?
[204] Ann: Marx is speaking of use-values and values in this footnote and how when at
the start of one’s life one derives use-values from others and creates their own values.
Hans: Sentence structure! Something like this may affect your grade.
But also regarding the content of your answer, the analogy is less direct. Marx does not talk here about human
values, but he compares the relations of commodity A in the relative form of value with commodity B in the
Equivalent form with the relation of the newborn baby Peter to the adult Paul taking care of him.
For an example, when a child is born it relies solely for care and development from its
parents. It receives images of life from its parents and eventually other relations about how
it should act, speak, and function in society. These images are not born with us (i.e.: “with
a mirror in our hands”), so we need to rely on the use-values of others to create our own
values.
(datestring)Sat, 28 Jan 1995 13:21:06 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) I apologize for the sentence
structure in the first paragraph. Thank you for your response. I went back and reread
the footnote and I now understand that he is not speaking of human values.
Next Message by Ann is [391].
[266] Braydon: Marx is saying that we cannot develop opinions of ourselves or perceive
ourselves as human beings without the interaction of other persons. We cannot look at
ourselves when we are born and decipher that “we are we”. We don’t know that we have
different personalities and interests until we interact with other people. For example, I have
a 9 month old son and I learned in reading parenting literature that it is important to play
peek a boo with your baby when he hits a certain age. The reason behind this is so they
can begin to understand that they are not a part of you. This game helps them to develop a
sense of themselves, that they are a distinct and separate human being. This is what, I feel,
Marx is saying. We don’t have a sense of ourselves when we are born. As we grow develop
our opinions. As my son grows he will realize that he is not like me and is more like his
father and when he differentiates between gender he will see himself as a boy. He will then,
probably, try to pattern his behavior after his father and at one point will have him as a role
model. I see myself as a woman because of my mother and pattern my life after hers along
with other women role models.
Hans: Good examples. By the way, why are you saying here that he will pattern his behavior after his father rather
than after you? Are you saying this because you don’t want him to have to play the subordinate role a woman has
to play in this society? He identifies with you, and when he discovers that you are playing a subordinate role in
society (but a role which he is not required to play), that has got to be difficult for him. Even for the sake of your
children it is better not to live like your mother but to strive for an equal position in the family and in society at
large.
Message [266] referenced by [380] and [445]. Next Message by Braydon is [339].
142 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
[274] Dubbel: The comment “humans are not born with a mirror in their hand,” gives
reference that humans are in a similar situation as commodities. Through this section commodities
have been explained in a relative value form which results to a equivalent value
form. For example, the linens value is expressed in the coat. A human is similar. As a new
born baby enters the world and matures he/she does not just identify with themselves. This
identity of himself or herself is found through the relations with others. Only through this
relation with another does the individual recognize his/her own likeness.
Hans: Yes.
Next Message by Dubbel is [275].
[281] Sinbad: Marx is saying that a man first sees and recognizes himself in another. We
pattern ourselves by what we see in others and hence form our appearance from this. I think
even if we were born with a mirror in our hands we wouldn’t know what we see, perhaps
only a reverse image of a person we don’t recognize or quantify with value. We need a
recognizable image to form a likeness or to express ourselves.
Hans: Value does not play a role in this metaphor.
Marx brings in this footnote to remind us that the value relation is an expression of value.
He says the physical body of commodity B becomes a mirror in which the value of commodity
A is reflected. So the value of commodity A is expressed only through its relation to
commodity B, just as man needs an image to express himself.
Hans: Yes.
Next Message by Sinbad is [427].
[290] Ledzep: We gain our identity by observing others and relating them to ourselves.
This is similar to the question 76, how two objects can gain an identity from equating similar
characteristics. The reason Marx declares that we aren’t born with mirrors is to just emphasize
the fact that we don’t get our initial identity from looking at ourselves. As we get older
we can obtain a “mirror” and see if we need to make adjusments to our previous beliefs that
we held about ourselves.
Hans: I would formulate your first sentence a little more strongly. We see ourselves at first only through the eyes
of others (this is stronger than relating others to oneself).
Next Message by Ledzep is [291].
[380] Eagle: We can’t see who we are, not physically, but our inner self. There isn’t a
mirror to look into for that. We must see who we are and recognize that we are man and we
have likenesses to others.
Hans: What you are saying is not specific for babies. And it also does not explain what Marx says about Peter and
Paul.
(datestring)Tue, 7 Feb 1995 21:14:28 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) Babies have no idea who
or what they are. They can’t see who they are without a mirror and wouldn’t understand it
anyway. They must figure it out for themselves. I took the Peter and Paul analogy to mean
that they are other people who had to start out the same way as everybody else. They are
people the same as myself.
Hans: Babies don’t figure it out “by themselves” but they see who they are by looking at other humans around
them. Look in the archive at the other responses to Question 88, for instance [266]
Next Message by Eagle is [421].
[445] Oj: In the text Marx compares man to commodity. They are similiar in that both can
identify themselves in contrast, or in similarity with other commodities or men. What Marx

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 143
means, is that a man only knows himself in comparison to others like him. If there were no
other either similiar, nor different man would not know how he would reflect. A man knows
himself physically, yet he does not know what his value to society is unless he can attain
example from others.
Hans: You think babies are miniature adults. Read [266]. Babies have no conception of society at all. They do not
even know that they are separate beings from their mothers.
Next Message by Oj is [450].
Question 89 is 105 in 1997WI, 103 in 1997ut, and 111 in 1998WI:
Question 89 Give an example of an expression which is not determined quantitatively.
[278] Telemark: Quantity of “Enjoyment,” if enjoyment serves as a possible “expression”
to which the question asks.... Note: I specifically will not use or “get in to” usages of utility
or happiness. Example: The recent push for increased environmental concern of private and
governmental sectors alike has brought about quite a dilemma in main stream “text book”
economic quantitative analysis. If a forest is clear cut and exchanged as a commodity, then
a quantitative value number can be attached to the timber for the sale. ie., 1 cord= $40.
Yet if I wish to be able to walk through those same woods and “enjoy” them for whatever
purpose. Then how can a quantitative number be expressed, “We marvel at the beauty of the
woods.” ie., 15 units of enjoyment or We enjoyed that walk more I think that was a 20. These
numbers have no meaning. There is no standard quantitative measurement for enjoyment.
The same can be said for the ability to “enjoy” or to continue to “enjoy” endangered species,
or unprotected land or waterways. Studies have been conducted asking for users of these
resources to “put a number” to a specific activity. ie., fishing, hunting, camping or the ability
to “enjoy” a certain activity. Well, some declared in one such study, “Exxon will have to
pay me 1 billion dollars to give me the same ”enjoyment“ I previously had to the Valdez oil
spill.” Are these true quantitative numbers for and irreplaceable item? Can this be used as
a measurement? Or is such a response simply anger and resentment, a way to get back at
Exxon for a mistake (guilty or not) which turned out to have disastrous effects.
Hans: Good examples of things that are incommensurable with money.
And I agree indeed that enjoyment, or call it joy, is an expression of something other than joy itself, and that it
resists quantification.
Next Message by Telemark is [419].
Question 92 is 107 in 1997ut, 114 in 1998WI, 136 in 2001fa, 169 in 2004fa, and 182 in
2007SP:
Question 92 Why is a commodity in the equivalent form immediately exchangeable with the
commodity in the relative value form?
[450] Oj: Commodity in the equivalence form is exchangeable with commodity in the
relative value form, because the commodity in the equivalence form takes into account the
value of the commodities which make up the main commodity. Such as the linen in a coat.
The linen is the commodity which forms the coat. Relative value is used by breaking down
the commodities of a commodity so that they can be picked apart for exchange. The example
Marx used is using so much linen to trade for a coat, thus exchanging commodities in
equivalence form to commodities in relative value form.
144 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
Hans: This is still the big misunderstanding again! The coat does not represent the value of the linen because the
coat is made of linen and the linen itself has no use value. And the linen is not directly exchangeable for the coat
because the coat is made of linen. I have said this a hundred times now, you should browse around in the archive.
Next Message by Oj is [455].
Question 93 is 101 in 1996sp, 108 in 1997WI, and 112 in 1997sp:
Question 93 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?
[270] Frosty: If “20 yards of linen is worth 1 coat” to the linen weaver, he should make an
exchange with the tailor. Since the linen plays an active role, it must be exchanged with the
coat in which he can express the value of the linen. The linen weaver has put labor time into
the linen, so must exchange it for something useful for him to express his labor in as well.
Does the linen weaver necessarily “have to” exchange only with the tailor? Although the
linen must be exchanged, I don’t think the linen weaver has to exchange only with the tailor.
If the linen weaver said, “20 yards of linen is worth 1 blanket” he can exchange with the
blanket maker (couldn’t he?). To sum up my explanation, the linen weaver must exchange
his linen but he can exchange it for anything he feels is useful in which he can expres (or
even share) the magnitude of his labor time and value.
Hans: My reading is that by saying “20 yards of linen = 1 coat” the linen weaver obligates himself to surrender
the 20 yards of linen if a coat (with the right specifications) if offered to him. The tailor may not agree with the
quantity, and he may say: my coat is worth 25 yards of linen. Then they may or may not come to an agreement.
(datestring)Mon, 30 Jan 1995 22:27:22 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) I thought the question
was whether the linen weaver had to make the exchange with the tailor, not the other way
around.
Hans: Yes, that was the question, and I said in my remark to your earlier submission that the answer was yes. I
only mentioned the tailor because it still depends on him whether he wants to accept the offer.
If the tailor felt that his one coat was worth 25 yards instead of 20 yards, the linen weaver
would not exchange with the tailor since he only feels 20 yards of linen is worth 1 coat.
Wouldn’t the linen weaver only make an exchange where his labor and value of the linen
can be equally expressed in the 1 coat? So if it were the case that the tailor felt his one coat
is worth 25 yards and the linen-weaver felt that one coat is only worth 20 yards, an exchange
would not occur. Is that correct? Since the linen weaver must make an exchange, will he
look elsewhere? Maybe with a tailor who also feels one coat is worth 20 yards of linen?
Hans: If he finds another tailor, yes. But with his offer, the linen weaver says two things: (1) he is accepting coats
in return for his linen, and (2) he feels his linen is valuable enough that the quantity he has to give in order to get
a coat is 20 yards. A tailor who has a coat which he thinks is worth 25 yards may still talk to the linen weaver,
because he knows the linen weaver is in the market for coats.
Next Message by Frosty is [401].
[345] Nena: If I (the tailor) need the linen, the weaver who think “20 yards of linens
worth one coat” (“20 yards of linen = 1 coat”), following the argument of Marx, will make
an exchange with me. Because, by the argument of Marx, if “20 yards of linen is worth one
coat”, then the coat is in a equivalent form, in which it’s immediately exchangeable with the
linen. Because there is no difference between the magnitude of value of 20 yards of linen
and 1 coat. But, I think, in the reality, the weaver would not have to make the exchange with
me, because although I need the linen and am willing to exchange 1 coat with 20 yards of

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 145
linens, the weaver might not need the coat and want to save the 20 yards of linen to make
an exchange with something else he really need in the future. Because, when the weaver
said: “ 20 yards of linen is worth one coat”, by the argument of Marx, the value expression
of linen depends on the magnitude of the value of the coat (as they are exchanged), but the
linen is not an expression of the magnitude of value of a coat. A coat is still a coat, which
can’t express its own value. A coat here only has its use-value. If the weaver doesn’t need
the coat, he got nothing in the exchange value unless he exchange the coat with something
else he need next time. Am I confused?
Hans: My reading is that the weaver expresses the value of the linen, which is a non-use-value for him but about
which he knows how much labor it contains, because he has produced it, in the use value of something he is willing
to take in exchange for the linen. The coat must therefore be a use value for the linen weaver.
Next Message by Nena is [478].
[703] Cmanson: The owner of the linen would not have to trade with you. He may not
like the coat which you produced and are trying to trade. He may have far to many coats
already. Maybe he can get something he feels is of more value to him by trading his linen
for something other than your coat.
Hans: I am glad I asked this Question. If the linen weaver says “20 yards of linen is worth one coat”, then this
means he feels a coat is sufficient compensation for the labor he put into the linen. He would never say it if he had
already enough coats. Why waste his labor for another coat? Perhaps reading my reply in [310] will help.
(datestring)Wed, 1 Mar 1995 21:49:00 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) The linen maker would
have to trade with you because his linen has no use value to him. His linen would only have
exchange value and therefore the only way for him to realize that value would be to trade.
The labor used to create the linen creates exchange value for the linen produced. The use
value of the commodity (linen) is embodied in the coat maker.
Hans: This is not the right way to argue this question. You should refer to what he says, and explain what he
means.
(datestring)Sun, 12 Mar 1995 21:27:31 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) If the linen maker says
20 yards of linen is worth one coat that can be percived to mean he would trade 20 yards of
linen for one coat. The fact that he said the coat is worth his linen means he needs the coat
and feels the value of his 20 yards of lined is equal to the value of one coat.
Hans: Ok.
Next Message by Cmanson is [704].
Question 94 is 105 in 1996ut, 110 in 1997WI, and 108 in 1997ut:
Question 94 Why is the relationship “20 yards of linen are worth 1 coat” not an expression
of the magnitude of the value of the coat?
[227] Golfer: The reason is because you can never express the magnitude of their own
value. This is because they considered the equation of value the equivilent always.
Hans: Another shot in the dark. I happen to consider this a rather difficult question, and I invite also the outside
observers to tell me what they think about this issue.
(datestring)Wed, 15 Mar 1995 15:36:49 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) In the relationship between
a commodity and its origin or raw materials, the coats can never express the magnitude
of their own value. But, only the magnitude of the value of the linen.
Hans: You are showing me how many misunderstandings you still have.
Next Message by Golfer is [468].
146 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
[299] Civic: The relationship “20 yards of linen are worth 1 coat” is an expression of
the magnitude of value of the linen, not of the coat. The reason is shown in R147:2/o. The
coat can never express the magnitude of its own value. In this expression the coat and the
linen serve as equivalents and they “figure in the value equation merely as definite quantities
of a certain thing”. In other words, due to the relationship as an equivalent, the coat is the
embodiment of value only through the linen and it cannot express its own value.
Hans: I am still not convinced. (This is a difficult question, and I am groping for an anwer myself.)
Next Message by Civic is [300].
[318] Ida: Because the coat has its own value. The coat is representing the use value
of the 20 yards of linen. 20 yards of linen have no value unless they are made into a coat.
Therefore, human labor is required to convert the 20 yards of linen into a coat. The linen has
no value until this is done.
Hans: This is the famous misunderstanding again!
Next Message by Ida is [452].
Question 95 is 104 in 1996sp, 111 in 1997WI, 115 in 1997sp, and 109 in 1997ut:
Question 95 Is it really true that a king is only king because others behave towards him as
subjects?
[215] Vida: Yes it is true that a king is only king because others behave towards him as
subjects. By definition, a king is “one that is preeminent in a group, category, or sphere.”
One comes to be considered superior because he believes himself to be so and others around
him reinforce the idea by behaving towards him as such. Their behavior towards him done
on an individual level, but the fact that so many individuals behave towards him as such,
then it becomes a fixture of society. One becomes king because they are transformed into
that social role by society. Society has deemed him king by their behavior towards him. He
truly believes himself to be king and superior. If those deemed “subjects” were to reject
the notion that he was king and treat him as any other, then he would be no different than
any other. Instead society has deemed him king and he will act accordingly if he wills to.
When one is born they are born into a particular social class. If they fail to recognize their
worth as a human being and as an individual, they will accept their placement and perpetuate
it. Therefore if they believe themselves to be king then they will behave as a king, if one
believes themselves to be a subject then they will behave as a subject. In the case that they
do recognize their true value they will recognize their equality relative to others. The king
will not behave as such because he cannot fathom the idea of being superior to his fellow
human being. Accordingly, the subject will not behave as such because he cannot fathom
the idea of his inferiority. The result will be a classless society of equals. Similar examples
of society deeming things so are the way we act towards those considered movie stars. They
have become kings in their own sense, kings of the movie screen. However, they have been
thrust into this role because individuals that form society behave toward them as if they
were superior. Society’s behavior towards them has transformed them into movie stars. The
same is true for those commodities considered “luxuries.” Society has labeled them luxuries
and behaves toward them as such. Society has placed more worth on those goods which
are name brands but ignores the equality of their value relative to substitute goods. Those
labeled kings or movie stars and those things labeled luxuries are merely the figment of

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 147
society’s imagination. Society, or rather the individual has place them (it) in that position.
Therefore, if society has placed them(it) in the position than society alone has the capability
to displace them(it).
Hans: Excellent! However I have an assignment for you: carefully read the text in the Annotations between
Questions 67 and 68, and answer Question 129. Bhaskar is on reserve.
Next Message by Vida is [216].
[269] Alex: It is hard to say if a king is only a king because others behave towards him
that way. In my view this is partially true. The other side of the story is that the only reason
that people behave to the king like he is a king is because he is a king. (It’s kind of the like
the problem of what came first the chicken or the egg) I guess what I am trying to say in
response to the question is that a king may be king because of the way people behave him,
but this is only part of the reason why he is a king.
Hans: I think your hunch is right, but I would like a more precise argument.
(datestring)Wed, 15 Mar 1995 22:04:30 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) I just wanted to add
that perhaps another reason that society acts toward a king like he was a king is because there
is a social need for a king. This being the case, it is more that a king is a king because society
acts toward him as a king. I thought a very good quote is one that follows question 67 in the
annotations “Society does not consist of individuals but expresses the sum of connections,
relations, in which these individuals stand with respect to each other.” Individuals are the
sume of connections and relations, a king is the sum of the connections and relations that he
has with society. The king stands as a king with respect to the rest of the population, and
this is why he is king.
Hans: Yes, the argument with the social need is a good one. This is not an argument by behavior (depite what
you say again in the next sentence). It is the structure of society which makes certain people kings, and others are
forced by social institutions to obey.
Next Message by Alex is [371].
[354] Asmith: Yes, royal blood of whatever human bleeds red like everyone elses. It is
the social perception or allowance that permits one individual or a family of individuals to
role over others. The kingdom allows it to be so.
Hans: Your last sentence seems to be a qualification. Is “the kingdom” just a social perception?
(datestring)Wed, 1 Feb 1995 16:47:52 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) Since you put it that way,
I really believe that everything is a perception. I am toying with the concept that everything
might even be an agreed upon illusion. Without a doubt everything that happens is processed
through our senses, how ever many there may be. In deed the political and other organizatons
are there because in some way they are agreed upon (including kingdoms).
Hans: I suggest next time you are bouncing around these ideas, look for logical inconsistencies. If everything is
just an illusion, then there is no need that the imaginary persons you see in this illusion must have the same illusion
you do, because they don’t exist anyway, they are just illusions. The next thing, after having made this worldview
consistent (which can be done), would be to look for events and circumstances which cannot be plausibly described,
but only described after some contortions.
(datestring)Fri, 3 Feb 1995 18:55:33 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) Here is some food for
thought, since thought might be all we’ve got. Thought, while not a commodity has usevalue.
It is not like a readily available raw material in that it is not in a physical form, however
its production can benefit (or hurt) its creator. Thoughts create emotion, and we have the
ability to control our thoughts, therefore we have the ability to control our emotions. Elaine
148 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
didn’t make anyone angry with her sharp comments, although some allowed themselves to
be angry by choosing to process what she wrote with their own thoughts that resulted in
their own angry emotions, felt only by them and not by Elaine. Others could have cared less
about what she wrote. Still others found her remarks funny. No one has the power or ability
to do anything to us unless we allow it by the way we process the action in our thoughts.
Thoughts can be transformed into a physically conveyable form and shared, [with E.S.P.
no form is necessary although I can’t speak of this from first hand experience] but in order
to be consumed, the form of thought must be convert back to nonform. Thought is what
makes each of us us. Otherwise we might as well be pigs or horses because they have all the
physical things we have. Everything eventually boils down to thought. Because I look down
and see my hands typing, a stimulus is sent to my brain. I think that I have hands because of
the way that that stimulus is interpreted in my brain, not necessarily because I actually have
hands. There is, without a doubt, a stimulus going to my brain. Is it possible to sense hands
without having hands? Recent amputees do, until they readjust to their new condition. The
remaining nerves in the stub that once transported the message from the missing limb the
rest of the way to the brain are still there. I wonder if as infants through our random motor
activity that we learned to associate the location of our extremities with the thoughts we
were thinking when our arms or legs suddenly started to move. Maybe the random activity
that infants exhibit from before birth can be described as a thought entity getting stuck in a
physical flesh structure and trying to find its way around. When I refer to thoughts, I don’t
just refer to the brain cells ability to receive sensory stimuli, but of the mysterious magical
activity that seems to be taking place in the head [Would Marx call it a fetish-social character
of the brain cell? Would Despain say it can not be explained with M.I. methodology?] I say
“seems to be happening inside our heads,” because maybe we just perceive it to be happening
in our heads because that is where our eyes are. Eventually however, we come to think of
ourselves as physical entities having thoughts. But, are we physical beings having a spiritual
experience, or are we spiritual (non-form) beings having a human experience? My hands, I
know, exist. After all, I am typing with them. They, like you, are not imaginary. Whether
they actually exist in the physical form, I can only deduce. Every piece of physical evidence
for their physical and your physical existence must be processed in the non-physical thought
realm. My dreams also exist. I do not just imagine that I have dreams. As to the “events
and circumstances which cannot be plausibly described” in my theory of an illusionary,
non-physical, not imaginary, but real world, show me some, and consider this. Doesn’t my
theory of the world better explain the events and circumstances of our universe without the
“contortions” necessary to describe it in the physical realm? Consider infinite space, what
is on the other side of the wall? How can space really go on forever? How can there be a
beginning of time? How can there not be? Maybe we should consider that form, like time,
and like space, do not really exist as we generally view them in the physical realm, but that
instead they are illusions (illusions that are not imaginary), and that our true essence is not
that of a mere hunk of meat, but instead something more in the realm of thought. Signed,
Just a thought.
Hans: Part of what you are writing has to do with emergence. I agree that our thoughts cannot just be reduced
to our brain cells moving. I think we are matter which has consciousness “emergent” from it (not consciousness
which has a matter attached to it). And I think I also understand better now what you say about society. Instead
of saying it is an illusion which people agree on, I would say: it is someting real and distinct from the individuals,

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 149
although it exists only in the countless images which they have in their brains. But these images are to some extent
synchronized, coordinated, and this gives them their emergend power. And just as you cannot identify a human
consciousness with the movement of brain cells, so you also cannot identify society with the countless reflections
it generates in the brains of its members.
Next Message by Asmith is [357].
[367] Scarlett: If we assume that the king is a commodity or a use value like any other
item we’ve been discussing, then yes. The value of a commodity is expressed in relative
terms to other commodities. If the social relationship between the king and his subjects
were to change, and the subjects no longer treated him as a king, he would no longer be a
king.
Hans: Is “the social relationship between the king and the subjects” merely a matter of behavior of the subjects?
(datestring)Wed, 1 Feb 1995 13:30:36 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) I guess it isn’t necessarily
only a matter of the behavior of the subjects. the relationship would also be a matter of
the kings behavior, the behavior of the “other kings,” but the behavior of the subjects would
be a necessary component of his status as their ruler.
Hans: Sorry, I did not make myself clear. I meant: Is “the social relationship between the king and the subjects”
merely a matter of behavior of the subjects (or of other individuals like the king himself or other kings)?
Next Message by Scarlett is [447].
[369] Titania: absolutely. a king can be a king in name, but have no power. when counties
experince revolutions, the king is typically ousted. although the king may have the lineage
and name of royalty, he is only a king in his mind. without others to recognize what he is, he
cannot justify what he thinks is real. to relate this question to marx’s writings, he states that
a coat (or any good) cannot be measured against itself as a realization of value, it must be
measured against something other than itself to have an unbiased notion of value. the coat
must be reduced to a common denominator so that its value is unitless (a universal form of
value.) the coat can only be considered as the equilvalent of 20 yards of linen. marx also
uses the example of a sugar-loaf and iron. (they have the same characteristic of weight and
the iron loses its identity to become a measure of weight relative to the sugar loaf. ie “.2 lbs
of iron=1 sugar loaf.”)
getting back to the question of whether a man is king only because others behave toward
him as one. do the citizens of a kingdom lose their identities because they are used only
as a measure of what the king is in relation to them? yes, both as individuals and as a
group. the king can only be seen by comparing himself to others different from himself. if
he were to explain himself in relation to a king, he would not get anywhere. he needs to use
regular denizens as an alternative to what he is. if people were unwilling to volunteer the
information that he is superior to them, he wouldn’t have anything different from himself to
compare himself to. he would not be a king.
Hans: This is an interesting inversion. First of all one should think that the king loses his identity because he must
play a certain role in order to solicit the “right” behavior from his subjects. He does not measure himself against
the subjects, but he gives the subjects something to measure themselves against.
Perhaps your inversion refers to the modern “kings”, the movie stars and sports stars etc. The old kings play a
certain social role in order to protect their power position and the social order that goes along with it. Perhaps the
social role of the modern “kings” is to convince us how imperfect we are. (Just as the social role of a teacher is to
convice the students that they are dumb and do not deserve a better job than that which capitalism has in store for
them anyway.)
150 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
a good example of this explanation occurs in the movie, “Monty Python’s Holy Grail” (or
whatever the specific title is. i think seeing it at least once is mandatory for leaving puberty.)
at the beginning of the movie, king arthur is going throughout his kingdom looking for
knights to be a part of his round table. he comes upon two guys digging in the ground (i
forget what they are doing exactly). he tells them that he is their king. they deny this claim
stating that he cannot be their king because they didn’t vote him in. he states that a king isn’t
voted in, he simply got the title by pulling the “sword from the stone.” these two regular
citizens again deny his claim by stating that no ruler should get his power from such a trival
act....... (long story short) ultimately, in that area of england, king arthur is not a king because
his “subjects” refuse to see him as such. shakespeare once wrote in HAMLET, “i could bind
myself in a nut-shell and call myself the master of infinite space.” this statement perfectly
explains marx’s view. there would be no one in the nut shell to tell the person thinking he is
king that he is n o t the master of infinite space; and therefore, whatever he in his version of
the world cannot be refuted. how is that different from a king telling everyone he is king?
(this is meant as a rhetorical question.)
Next Message by Titania is [441].
[400] Rangers: I believe that a king is only a king because others behave towards him as
subjects. A king is just a person plain and simple, he has no special powers, he is no better
than you or I. But when people put him on a pedestal they are essentually giving him power
over them. This may be why President Clinton is having such a hard time of it. People
see him as just a person, even though he has done a lot in terms of the economy and social
issues. People just regard him as a regular guy and don’t think of him very highly.
Hans: The power which a king has not only comes from people’s behavior, but he also has resources and police to
back him up.
An another example of this is paper money, there is nothing of value associated with it
whatsoever. It is just everyones belief that it holds value, it could be sandstone or clamshells
for all that matter.
Hans: Marx would not accept that explanation. There are very real social structures which back up this belief.
These structures were investigated in Section 3 of Chaper One of “Capital.”
Next Message by Rangers is [489].
[455] Oj: Marx writes that this is true. A king is only a king, because others act as subjects
towards him. This does not mean that another man is any less of a man physically. However,
the king has much more value than a peasant or landowner. The equivalence form shows
that if you pick apart the king from a king to a man, he is the same as any other man. You
would need hundreds of normal men to value the king. The king like a wealthy commodity
has much value compared to that of the normal commodity or man. A king is a king because
he/she was elected and given value to society as a whole, not just to parts of society like a
man working for charity.
Hans: Marx applies the metaphor of the king not to the relationship between commodities with high value versus
“normal” commodities, but to the relationship between the equivalent form to the relative form of value, or think of
it as the relationship between money and the “normal” commodities.
Next Message by Oj is [633].
[702] Cmanson: Yes. That would be the major factor of a person being a king. One could
be born a king and have the wealth of a kingdom but if no one believed in him his birth rights
would do him no good.

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 151
Hans: To me it seems that Marx is a “reductionist” here: he reduces social {1} to social {2} . Which again means to
me that he was not sufficiently aware of the distinction between social {1} and social {2} which he himself implicitly
did make. I had put questions to this effect into many of the prior submissions to this Question when I tried to
suggest that there was an additional element in addition to people’s behavior. If you as a latecomer ignore that,
Cmanson, this will hurt your grade. Do you understand what I mean? If you do, please explain it back to me in
your own words.
Next Message by Cmanson is [703].
Question 96 is 112 in 1997WI, 119 in 1998WI, and 135 in 2000fa:
Question 96 Lacan wrote that a madman who believes himself a king is no more mad than
a king who believes himself to be a king. Do you get it?
[1026] Renegade: For the most part, human beings do not live in social isolation. In
order to become human, we must be socialized. This process stamps a particular paradigm
from which we base our observations, beliefs and behaviors. The fact of the matter is that
there is no truth to any belief, just different ways of seeing things or believing things. The
only difference between the madman who believes himself a king and the king who believes
himself one is that the king who believes himself one has others who believe it too. This is
the only difference. This is based on the same idea of what Marx expressed in his examples
of gold, silver and money. In some countries cowrie shells are the unit of monetary exchange.
The only reason they are valuable is because they have become mystified and mutually
agreed upon as having a worth. They are in actuality no more valuable than dollar bills, pink
stones, or any other tangible object.
Hans: Therefore the cowrie shell which thinks it is money because it is more valuable than the other commodities
is as foolish as a king who thinks he is a king because of of his personal qualities.
Next Message by Renegade is [1027].
Question 102 is 113 in 1996ut, 118 in 1997WI, 122 in 1997sp, and 115 in 1997ut:
Question 102 Why could Aristotle not see that the substance of value is labor?
[272] Sprewell: Aristotle could not see that the substance of value is labor because the
Greek society during his time used slave labor. Slaves were not seen as the equals of others
and thus their labor was not seen to have the same value as that of others. Marx, on the
other hand, broke all human labor down to a common denominator which he could use as a
measurement of value.
Hans: You do as if the measurement of value was something subjective, something Marx did. Marx would say
that his analysis only reproduces in the brain how this measurement is being done in reality. This leads to Question
103: Labor was not equal in Ancient Greece—how could the Greeks then exchange?
Next Message by Sprewell is [273].
[291] Ledzep: The Greeks had slaves which made men and labor inequal. This “blinded”
Aristotle so he never grasped the concept that labor is the substance of value.
Hans: Ok.
Next Message by Ledzep is [430].
[300] Civic: Aristotle was able to write the equation 5 beds = 1 house, but he was unable
to reduce the equation to its homogeneous element “human labor”. He could not see what
Marx called the substance of value because it is contingent upon equal human labor and the
society of the ancient Greeks was founded by slaves. This exploitation of slaves resulted in
an inequality of labor power and thus the concept of substance of value could not be derived.
152 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
Marx further writes that Aristotle was a genius to discover this relationship and it was only
the societal limitations (due to slavery) that prevented him from discovering what Marx calls
the substance of value or human labor.
Hans: His genius was that he deduced that there must be something equal in the things being exchanged, despite
the fact that he could not concretely see what this equal substance was.
Next Message by Civic is [424].
[525] Makarios: Aristotle could not equate the substance of value with labor because
labor to Aristotle was, definitively, different than labor was to Marx. The reason for this
is that in the times of Aristotle, slave labor was being used for the production of most everyday
commodities. Society, therefore, placed different meanings on both the abstract and
concrete forms of labor, so that equivalent expenditure of abstract human labor for different
individuals (slave and master) were not the same.
Hans: Good.
Next Message by Makarios is [526].
Question 103 is 125 in 1998WI, 180 in 2005fa, and 247 in 2010fa:
Question 103 Labor was not equal in Ancient Greece—how could the Greeks then exchange?
[247] Vida: Since the concept of human inequality was the mainstream in Ancient Greece,
the expression of value was not equated with the value of the human labor. Therefore, the
Greeks exchanged on the basis of the relationship between commodities. The exchange
relationship between commodities was associated with its quantitative value, more so than
its qualitative value. The exchange value of one commodity was reflected in and compared
to the exchange value of another commodity.
Hans: You are basically saying that Marx’s derivation that the exchange presupposes some equal substance in the
commodities, which can only consist in their content of abstract human labor, does not hold.
Question to Consider: The notion of the inequality of human beings still permeates society
today. Would it be fair to say that we still operate in a society based on a slave labor
model?
Hans: Wage labor is a little better than slave labor, but not much. We will get to this soon.
Next Message by Vida is [363].
Question 115 Why is it not until the General form of value that different commodities are
effectively brought in relation to each other as values?
[273] Sprewell: The General form of value uses one kind of commodity, linen was the
example given, to express the values of all other commodities. Each commodity can then be
expressed in terms of one another through their equality with linen. This allows them to be
brought in relation to each other as values and to appear as exchange-values.
Hans: Good.
Next Message by Sprewell is [373].
[526] Makarios: The General form takes one commodity, such as linen, and uses it as a
universal equivalent for all other commodities, whereby if a certain quantity of a commodty
equates to a certain quantity of linen, and another commodity also equates to a quantity

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 153
of linen, these two commodities can now be equated to each other, but only in terms of
quantities of the initial commodity, being that of linen.
Hans: Ok, this is the right answer.
Next Message by Makarios is [527].
Question 118 is 127 in 1996sp, 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 118 What is the progress of the Money form as compared to the General Equivalent
form?
[315] Pegasus: Question 118: In the money form a certain commodity takes on the form
of a universal equivalent form. It is a commodity that can be exchanged and has a value
relation to all other commodities. Marx says that gold is filling this function because of its
practicality. In Capital Marx writes that: “Gold confronts the other commodities as money
only because it previously confronted them as a commodity” (Capital, p.162). The progress
of the money form is that the universal commodity becomes gold. Before, the universal
commodity was something else, as linen for instance.
Hans: The advantages of gold over linen will be discussed in Chapter Two. Right now, only Marx brings the
following argument: the universal equivalent should always and everywhere be the same commodity. This was
accomplished by attaching the use value of gold permanently to this value form.
Next Message by Pegasus is [474].
Question 119 is 135 in 1997WI and 139 in 1997sp:
Question 119 Which “complications,” “metaphysical subtleties,” and “theological niceties”
is Marx referring to when he calls the commodity “mysterious”?
[437] Yoda: According to Marx on page 149 the “mysterious” commodity appears to be
money.
Hans: No, Marx does not mean a particular commodity here but any commodity.
With that in mind, maybe I can try to answer this question. When Marx refers to it as
mysterious, he is talking about the form this commodity takes on. The complications of
this commodity is that it has many determinants and can be used in many different ways.
The metaphysical subtleties are the determinants contained in it. These determinants can be
hidden or even undeveloped. The theological niceties are the properties that do not come
from its’ physical body. Money can be used in many ways and can also be developed into
producing more money. There are some things that seem mysterious to me about money. If
I had a million dollars, I could go to about any store and buy anything I wanted in a matter
of minutes. The objects that I could buy probably took many hours to produce where the
money only took a matter of minutes to make. Cash is merely paper but has many properties
other than just its’ own physical properities. It has power.
Hans: The question where money has this purchasing power from is what Marx calls the “riddle of money.” In
order to solve the riddle of money Marx first looks at the relationship between coat and linen, where the earlier
stages of this same relationship can be studied.
Next Message by Yoda is [440].
154 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
[465] Oregon: When Marx refers to a commodity as a mysterious thing in the “complications”,
“physical subleties”, and “theological niceties” he is refering the lack of control that
the individual has over a commodity.
A commodity is stated as a “trivial and obvious thing” at first glance, however when you
look deeper into the subject you see many different angles of the commodity. The complications
of the commodity derives from its double character, the has many determinations.
The metaphysical sbuleties is the hidden form of the commodity. Here the second fole of
the commodity is evident. It is evident in the hidden form. The theological niceties are the
properties that come not from its physical properties.
“The three pecularities of the equivalent form. ”
Hans: Were you in a hurry?
Next Message by Oregon is [466].
[489] Rangers: I like this question a lot, I have once pondered this sort of thing while in
an intro to economics class before. In order to answer the question let’s take the overused
and no longer popular “butter and guns” break down of economic analysis. In terms of
complications, butter and guns–the objects are easily recognized by themselves. We use
butter on toast or a potato to add flavor. We would use a gun to shoot someone or something.
Yet, when put in an economic model to discuss supply and demand they take on a whole
new persona. They no longer mean the use that we usually associate with the objects. They
take on “metaphysical subleties”, butter and guns when put into a model stand for more
than they really are. The two objects which we are very familiar with now become larger
and represent more. Usually the representation stands for something like, which is more
important food or military build-up. Yet, you couldn’t survive on a diet of butter and an
army made up solely of gunners would not do very well. The items therefore transform
into a God-like mircale similiar to feeding a 1000 people with two fish and a loaf of bread.
Hence, the “theological nicety” that I believe Marx was thinking about. P.S. Let me know if
Marx and I were thinking along the same lines in regard to this question and answer.
Hans: As someone who is used to thinking abstractly I am sometimes amazed how concretely others take every
word. I would make the transition from guns to every kind of military equipment and from butter to a moderately
comfortable life (it does not say “bread and guns” but “butter and guns”, i.e., the barest of necessities are not up for
discussion) without giving it a second thought.
But Marx’s analysis in this first chapter can be considered a warning that one should make oneself aware of the
meanings of the concepts one uses. He is not digging into the meaning of a particular use value (like butter in the
above context), but into the meaning of “commodity” in general. When people use the word “commodity” they
usually think of a use value, and they are not aware that it also has an exchange value, that it is something which
is worthless to the producer and must be sold (which is what gives money its apparent power), and that, through its
value, it stands in relation with all other commodities. These are the hidden qualities which Marx refers to here.
Next Message by Rangers is [496].
Question 120 is 129 in 1996sp, 131 in 1996ut, 141 in 1998WI, 148 in 1999SP, and 167 in
2001fa:
Question 120 Can you find other examples of phenomena in capitalism which have an
openly “magical” character?
[436] Deadhead: I’m not quite sure this is a proper answer but I feel that there are many
phenomena in capitalism and economics in general that are “magical” and seem to change on

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 155
their own. Things such as the rise and fall of interest rates seems uncontrollable. The whole
theory of “credit”-having current purchase power on the basis that you will make enough
money and be willing to pay your debts in the future. Finally is the concentration of wealth.
In a capitalist economy such as that of the United States, money seems to accumulate in large
amounts amongst a small percentage of the population. The welathiest 5% of the population
controls over 35% of the nations total wealth, demonstrating a very uneven distribution of
wealth.
Hans: Yes, from analogies in physics one should expect that wealth dissipates more and more evenly among
everybody, but this is not so.
Next Message by Deadhead is [439].
[446] Allison: I would not have been able to answer this question previous to my examinations
of the annotations thus far in this class. I keep returning to a quote that I stated
earlier this quarter by Fredrick Lewis Allen, “Few things are harder to observe clearly...than
the ordinary, everyday aspect of things.” This quote continually comes to mind as I struggle
to understand Marx’s careful examination of things that I have, whether by design or ignorance,
chosen to simply accept as things. However, having read a small portion of Marx, I
feel that I can see some of the phenomena in capitalism that have a magical character, that
perhaps before I had never thought of. One such phenomena would have to be the relationship
between workers and work. That people are willing, or forced by the system, to engage
in a job or work for a large majority of their lives that in no way offers them any sort of
personal sort of satisfaction or inner peace. This, I believe, although a seemingly superficial
concept, when examined closely does seem to symbolize some sort of magical character.
That the nature of the work, although not truly rewarding to the worker has some sort of
magnetic pull in capitalism–in a sense locking the worker into his/her position. To me that
represents a sort of magical character.
Hans: It is as if we all were living in a big prison, but nobody ever mentioned the fact that this is a prison. This is
one of the taboos of our society. We all are under a spell. Very good and original example.
Message [446] referenced by [456]. Next Message by Allison is [451].
[502] Asmith: Money is just printed paper. Yet we give it exchange value. Even when
we had a gold standard and the printed paper could be exchanged at a later time for it’s
equivalent in gold, it was still mysterious that paper with no intrinsic value would be used
as if it were a commodity for exchange. The paper had no real use-value in and of itself,
its value was socially derived. Inflation, growth, recession, and business cycles all have a
mysterious influence on a capitalistic economy.
Hans: All these were in the Annotations (although I did not specify “paper money” when I wrote: the power of
money to purchase everything).
(datestring)Fri, 3 Feb 1995 11:28:38 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) I guess I should have read
the annotations then. Just kidding. Getting really into the magical, magnetism, gravity,
waves, light, crystals, and even love are very magical. But they are not unique to a capitalistic
society. Consider the market forces that propel the market towards equilibrium where
supply comes near to equaling demand in the labor, product and capital markets. It would indeed
seem openly magical to an outer space observer watching all the little humans running
around like busy ants on an ant hill, without the benefit of central planning, yet seeming to
know what to do, and as it turns out, acting in a somewhat efficient manner. Another mystery
at first, is why the labor market doesn’t clear. These human creatures don’t like to get pay
156 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
cuts, and their bosses don’t want to risk a reduction in productivity or losing key people even
if the wages they pay are above the equilibrium level. In order to have an equilibrium level
of wages the aggregate wage would need to be lower. With lower wages, less labor would
be willing to be supplied, and more labor would be demanded. The equilibrium level of
employment would include a lower wage level for everyone acrossed the board. The lower
wage level for everyone may be more of an overall reduction in wages than say 5% unemployment.
In such cases it may be more efficient to take from the rich and give to the poor,
as long as the gift doesn’t act to reduce the demand for labor. The gift can soften the blow of
unemployment reducing the workers incentive to remain productive on the job. If everyones
wages were cut, the cost of the input labor would be reduced, leading to a reduction of prices
leading to a reduction of goods supplied leading to a reduction in labor. Mysterious!
Hans: You don’t seem to care much how it all hangs together, but you seem to be quite confident that, if one were
to follow all the links, one comes to the conclusion that the status quo is overall the best possible.
You may say that I have made the case for socialism. I say, workers without a new
paradigm need profit incentive. I am for a new paradigm. In the mean time, I am enjoying
the profit incentive. Life is full of magic and mystery.
Next Message by Asmith is [503].
[677] Sinikka: Question 120: Adoration of movie stars, ball players, rock musicians,
and sleazy TV programs; generally adoration of something that is connected to glamour and
money.
Hans: You are right: this can be considered another magical property of money.
Next Message by Sinikka is [678].
Question 121 is 98 in 1995ut, 131 in 1996sp, 133 in 1996ut, 181 in 2002fa, 185 in
2003fa, 212 in 2004fa, 208 in 2005fa, 228 in 2007SP, 233 in 2007fa, 238 in 2008fa, 251
in 2009fa, 278 in 2010fa, and 247 in 2011fa:
Question 121 Which evidence does Marx refer to when he calls the commodity “mysterious”?
[409] Dubbel: Marxs says the mystery is not outwardly seen but is hidden. “Its not in
the use-value.” For example, he uses a piece of wood. The use-value of the wood is not
mysterious at all, or its properties it fulfills for a human need. The mystery is were the of
product of human labor changes the form of the piece of wood into a useful form for him.
The wood is changed into a table. The original piece of woods form has been changed.
The table is still that piece of wood, however, as soon as it evolved into the table or another
commodity it has altered into actual social form.
Hans: You are not aware that Marx attaches a very special meaning to the word “commodity.” You are still using
the common-sense definition that a commodity is a useful thing. For Marx, a commodity is more than just a useful
thing. As an example I like to think of a person: he or she is more than just a body. In the same way, a commodity is
more than just a use value. The “soul”, so-to-say, of the commodity, is its place in society. A commodity is a useful
thing which was produced for the exchange. This simple fact turns the commodity into something mysterious. The
use value itself however is not mysterious.
I believe Marx relates to actual human development in the fact that the table stands on its
own feet as if being physically and socially recognizable. The character of the product of
labor in which the item assumes the form of a commodity is where the mystery lies.

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 157
Hans: You are trying to make sense of what you thought Marx said, namely, that a commodity as a use value, i.e.,
a table, is mysterious. In the text, Marx uses the fact that the table has feet like a human as a metaphor in order to
lead over to the other fact that the table as a commodity seems to have its own will. Don’t let this mislead you. As
a useful object, a table is not mysterious. But I count it in your favor that you are trying to integrate what you are
reading.
Next Message by Dubbel is [417].
[410] Frosty: On page 163 of Capital, Marx writes about the mysteriousness of a commodity’s
character and from where this mysteriousness arises. He rules out the use-value
of commodity as being mysterious. He writes that there is nothing mysterious about man
changing the forms of the material of nature in order to make it useful for him. Marx also
rules out the content of the determinations of value as the source of the mysteriousness of
a commodity. These include human abstract labor, socially necessary labor time, and social
relations. Marx, then, settles on the form which these value determinations take as the source
of the mystery of the commodity. On page 164 of Capital, Marx gives an explanation of this
mystery. He writes that the reason why the commodity form is mysterious is because “social
characteristics of men’s own labor are reflected back to them as objective characteristics
inherent in the products of their labor...”
Hans: This is an excellent summary of Marx’s derivation answering the question what the mysterious character
of the commodity consists in. This answer will get you a good grade, but my question at this point was much
more specific. I wanted to know the starting point of this protracted search. Marx starts with the statement that
the commodity is mysterious, and then he goes through the development which you so aptly summarized. But how
does he get the idea that the commodity is mysterious in the first place? How does he back up this assertion?
(datestring)Wed, 1 Feb 1995 10:58:30 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) The background Marx
uses to support his conclusion of the mysterious character of commodities come from the
notion that products that become commodities have a life of their own. Although a man may
change the form of commodities so it is useful for him, the commodity itself still has a life
of its own. Marx uses the table as a example. He writes that the form of wood is altered to
make a table. As soon as the wood becomes a commodity, it has a life of its own.
Hans: Yes, this is the right answer, and Sections 1–3 of Chapter One (poreceding the Commodity Fetishism Section)
are the description of this inner life of commodities.
But it is not quite clear to me if you understand correctly what it means to become a commodity. What you
write almost sounds as if wood itself was not a commodity, but when it is made into a table then it is a commodity.
This is not the right interpretation of what “a commodity” means.
(datestring)Thu, 2 Feb 1995 22:23:53 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) After receiving helpful
hints from George Mcmeen on the mysterious character, I am taking another stab at the
addtional question you asked after I submitted my first answer to this question. You asked
how Marx gets the idea that the commodity is mysterious in the first place. Marx wrote that
a commodity seems to be an obvious thing at first. But after careful evaluation, it is actually
a complicated thing. This complication arises from the fact that commodities have many
determinations and these determinations are hidden, undeveloped, and abstract. This is why
commodities are mysterious.
Hans: Yes, this time it is completely right. Thank you for your persistence.
Message [410] referenced by [411]. Next Message by Frosty is [505].
[411] Alex: Which evidence does Marx refer to when he calls the commodity “mysterious?”
Marx is not using use value to say that a commodity is mysterious, rather the mysteriousness
of a commodity stems from the fact that the commodity is a useful thing produced
158 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
for exchange (i.e. produced to be sold). In the example of the table Marx points out the table
is not mysterious as a useful thing, but when the table “emerges” as a commodity it becomes
mysterious.
Hans: Compare [410].
Next Message by Alex is [412].
[414] Sprewell: The mysterious characteristics of commodities appear when it is introduced
into a market for exchange. Some of these include the business cycle, inflation, etc.
The mysteriousness of commodities doesn’t come from their use-values, but rather appears
when this useful thing is produced for exchange. The example of the table shows that the
table is not mysterious as a useful thing, but when that table is produced for exchange it
becomes mysterious.
Hans: I grant you that inflation and business cycles can be called “mysterious”, but from there it is quite a step
to say that the commodity is mysterious. And a table produced for exchange is also not commonly thought of as
mysterious. Therefore: where is the evidence?
Next Message by Sprewell is [415].
[440] Yoda: Marx believes that money and capital are mysterious commodoties. The
mystery is basically hidden in that you can’t see the form of this commodity without first
uncovering it. Outwardly the commodity seems very trivial “useful object”, but the structure
of it contains the mystery.
Hans: Yes this is right. The “evidence” is basically the results of Marx’s previous analysis. You have to dig into
the commodity, not with a knife but with your mind’s forces of abstraction, in order to uncover the mystery.
Money has power. Something so simple that only took minutes to produce can have the
power to exchange for something that took days to produce.
Hans: What you describe here is no longer the mystery one finds if digging in the commodity, but this is a by
no means hidden mysterious quality of the higher developed social forms – about which Marx says that they are
so blinding, dazzling, that they are impossible to understand by themselves. One can only understand them if one
traces their development from the simpler forms hidden in the commodity.
Next Message by Yoda is [444].
[454] Eddie: The evidence Marx refers to when he calls a commodity mysterious is the
example of Robinson Crusoe, religion and social {1} versus social {2} . I find it very interesting
that Marx refers to the mystery of a commodity as what I got as the mystery of social aspects
of people.
Hans: If I understand you right (also what you say below), you think Marx says we have capitalism because people
are greedy for commodities, and Marx is blaming the commodities for it, but really it is part of human nature to
want to be better and the want to show off.
People do not like to be Robinson Crusoe’s. They would rather have commodities for
the good of society rather than the good helping themselves. I think that the mystery of
a commodity was that as Crusoe on his island makes goods that contain value. As I have
misunderstood in other questions, the use-value is made by Crusoe for his uses. The item
is valuable as interactions take place with society. This value is then a converted to a commodity
as socially goods are needed to please the society. I think Marx is trying to say that
as individuals we are making goods into purposes to serve ourselves. As we come into a
social realm we want to be better than others and this is the capitalist way. Instantly we will
want commodities not for use-values but for showing up the neighbors. I relate to this but I
also think we are born with an instinct to be better than others, rather than being robots and
having everyone be the same we also have personalities that differ one from the other.

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 159
Hans: I think the main difference between what you think Marx says and what Marx really says is that Marx does
not blame the individuals for being too greedy, but he says that our economy is addicted to growth and generally
has an inner dynamic which individuals do not control. Some individuals are greedy, many are not, but this greed
is not what drives capitalism.
Next Message by Eddie is [458].
[457] Zaskar: The mysterious nature of the commodity according to Marx is not the usevalue
or the exhange value of the item, but rather a more supernatural quality wherein the
commodity is a living reflection of the talent and labor of the worker’s thoughts, intention
and toil. It seems to me that Marx uses physiological examples to give evidence of his theory
of the value of the commodity because every human sense that goes into the composition of
a commodity is what makes it mysterious.
Hans: The use value of the commodity is “a living reflection of the talent and labor of the worker’s thoughts,
intention and toil.” But according to marx, the use value is not mysterious. The mystery of the commodity has to
do with value. If one looks at the value of the commodity, the worker’s thoughts, intention and toil only count as
expenditure of human labor. In other words, what you wrote is not Marx.
Next Message by Zaskar is [463].
[466] Oregon: When referring to a commodity as a mysterious thing Marx is looking at
the social realtionships that cannot come into exixtence until some individuals carry them
out. The theological niceties, physical subleties, and complications of the commodity mix
to give it mystery.
Hans: The question was exactly: which theological niceties, physical subleties, and complications is Marx talking
about?
Next Message by Oregon is [467].
[474] Pegasus: Marx says that the mystery of the commodity does not arise from the
use value of the commodity or from the labor time used to produce it. The mystery of the
commodity arises from the commodity itself. Marx uses a table as an example. The wood
that the table is made from is not in itself mysterious, but as soon as the wood is formed
into a table it aquires mystery. Even if the production process (labor ect) is not a part of the
fetishism of the commodity, it is inseparable from it because it is in the production process
that the commodity aquires its fetishism.
Hans: You are saying that wood itself is not a commodity, but when it is made into a table then it is a commodity.
This is wrong.
(datestring)Wed, 8 Feb 1995 18:18:00 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) In my answer I said that
the wood that the table was made from was not mysterous. You rightly corrected me. As I
understand it the wood is a commodity and therefore mysterious. But what about the tree
that the wood comes from and that the table is made from. Is that mysterious also? I am
mystified.......
Hans: Yes, any commodity, whatever its use value, is mysterious. The mystery has nothing to do with the use
value. Don’t even look at the use value when you are investigating its mysterious character.
Next Message by Pegasus is [480].
[495] Leo: His example of one coat being worth 20 yards of linen is a simple form of
value. To analyse this in terms of a money value takes the mystery away.
Hans: In 139:1 (which you are apparently looking at) Marx says that the mystery of money will disappear if one
traces it back to the Simple form of value.
Next Message by Leo is [635].
[503] Asmith: Marx states (R164:3) that the mysterious character of the commodityform
consists simply in the fact that the commodity reflects the social characteristics of
160 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
men’s own labour as objective characteristics of the products of labor themselves. Even
though the commodity is produced in private, away from the market place where it is to
be later exchanged, the commodity mysteriously “carries” with it to the market place a non
physical (even though produced through the commodity form labor) quality that embodies in
it a social desire for increasing consumption, expansion and mysteriously over shadows the
entire process propelling the process (capitalism) to it’s inevitable doom. The evidence that
this happens as per Marx in his sentence above is what Marx calls a fact (he presents this fact
as evidence). Men create impersonal objects to exchange. The more they produce the more
they can get. They don’t care about the use-value, only the exchange value that it will bring
in the market place. The more they want the more labor they are willing to provide. They are
willing to even destroy, if necessary, in order to create exchange value (without concern for
use-value). This is the social characteristics of men’s own labor objectified (socially visible
as evidence) in the commodity.
Hans: You are jumping ahead, but in the right direction. You are very good at picking up the great lines of Marx’s
argument, but this here was a rather microscopic question referring to one step in Marx’s derivation. Marx does not
just state facts, he does deduce things. Much of it is done by re-examining things which we think are familiar to all
of us.
(datestring)Fri, 3 Feb 1995 11:41:08 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) Marx reexamines the familiar
object, the commodity, not by holding it in his hand, but by looking at social aspects
of the commodity, getting into the commodity through the social form of the commodity,
labor, and deducing his findings as well as presenting facts as described above.
Hans: Yes, this is right, but it is still not the answer to Question 121. Look at the context of the question. We are
at the beginning of the Section about the Fetish-like character of the commodity. Marx suddenly declares that the
commodity is mysterious. What does he base this on? Is there any empirical evidence for it? I do not want right
now Marx’s subsequent analysis of this mysterious character. I just want to know how he made the transition in
Capital.
Next Message by Asmith is [504].
[515] Titania: Marx defines his most current explanation of the commodity in discussion
of its mysterious characteristic. (pg. 163/164) However, he is adding on to earlier text in
which he gives a concrete, yet static, explanation of a commodity. He states, “A commodity
is first of all, an external object, a thing which through its qualities satisfies human needs of
whatever kind.”
Hans: This is not the definition of a commodity, and this may have confused many class participants. This is the
first step in Marx’s analysis of the commodity, and by far not yet the whole analysis. It is like saying: “a human
being is first of all an intricate physiological organism”. This is one aspect of it, but it is not the whole human being,
because it disregards (for now) social connections and the consciousness and intentionality.
This is true, but only on a very surface level. He goes on to explain the various forms of
value. The values are certainly an important property of the commodity, but by no means
give define the good. (just as one’s physical characteristics do not define him or her.) When
he states that a commodity is mysterious, he is taking the commodity to a higher plane of
existence: personifying it by giving it depth and character, even life to better explain it to his
reading audience.
Hans: You seem to define the “mysterious character” of the commodity as a third dimension which it has besides
use value and value. A commodity, in Marx’s eyes, is use value and value, and that’s it. The use value is the
static aspect, its surface existence, and the value is its life. Value is a social relation, and really it is not things
(commodities) which are running amok under capitalism, but people’s own social relations are running amok.

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 161
The commodity is mysterious because today we do not see it as its various parts of labor,
but merely a finished product: dead, and only serving our wants. However, in earlier days,
a good was the sum of its labors (from any/all producers). A “child” formed by both the
nature and nurture of his producers. By stating that the commodity is mysterious, Marx is
trying to give his reader a higher understanding of the true place a good fills in society.
Hans: This is very good and insightful and will get you a good grade. My question about the evidence was meant
to be much more microscopic about justifying one step in Marx’s analysis, and you did not really answer it.
Below follows an answer which you asked me to disregard, but I will keep it in the archive, because it may be
interesting for others to read.
(datestring)Wed, 1 Feb 1995 12:53:56 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) The commodity is money.
Marx states that value is something purely social. In the example of the coat and the linen,
the equivalent form (the coat) has social value because of the labor it incorporates and expresses
every day. However, money is the equilvalent form of just about everything in our
society in theory–i think marx would disagree and I will explain later– (we can get money
for selling anything) and vice-versa, we can give money for any commodity we wish to buy.
However, Marx bases his judgment of value on the labor a commodity incorporates. In our
society, i think Marx would say that it is incorrect to be able to pay money for anything
because the paper itself that we are trading probably has about 3 minutes of labor in it. But,
we go on to trade that 3 minutes of labor for things that could have hours of labor in them.
(Marx states that it is the crude bourgeois vision which makes the situation this way.) But,
why doesn’t Marx see the money as a symbol of the labor one has done (for instance, what
money was when countries were on the gold standard). Certainly Marx appreciates that we
can’t take the products of our labor around with us to be traded. Doesn’t money provide an
easy way the carry the value of our labor?
Hans: Marx does not insist that money must always be valuable gold coins. This gold can be represented by paper,
and nowadays the paper does not even represent gold any more. But money is still the means by which commodities
can express their values, i.e., the theory of the realtive form and the equivalent form is still applicable.
Next Message by Titania is [516].
[611] Sms: The mysterious character of the commodity lies in the commodity reflecting
the social characteristics in the form of our own labor as objective social characterisitcs of
the products of labor themselves (the commodities).
Hans: This is the conclusion of Marx’s investigation. I was asking for the evidence for the first step in his investigation.
(datestring)Wed, 8 Feb 1995 22:49:43 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) The mystery of the commodity
has nothing to do with the use-value, but rather the commodity is mysterious because
it can take on a life of its own. The commodity can become many different things and can
take many forms. When one delves into this description of the commodity, it appears that
the commodity is very abstract which is what makes the commodity mysterious.
Hans: Yes, this goes into the right direction.
Next Message by Sms is [613].
[688] Tuan: When I asked Han Despain, teaching assistant, I was pleased wih his advice
about the evidence that Marx refer to commodity as mysterious. As far as I understood from
max ’s evidence about commodity as mysterious, he stated that a commodity was an obvious
thing at first place but these commodity need to have determination. These determination
162 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
are basically hidden, undeveloped, and abstract. Therefore, that was a evidence why Marx
called commodity as mysterious.
Hans: These determinations are not only undeveloped, hidden, and abstract (so that the microscope of theoretical
analysis is necessary to pull them out) but these determinations contain mysterious elements in them (example: the
three peculiarities of the equivalent form).
Next Message by Tuan is [690].
[982] Ghant: The mysterious character of the commodity resides within the commodity
itself. Marx reasons that as soon as the table steps forth as a commodity, it changes... In
other words, when it becomes a commodity, it takes on a life of its own, due essentially to
the expenditure of human brain, nerves, muscles, sense organs, etc.
Hans: No, that is not the reason.
From Marx argument, we can conclude that he believes that this mysterious nature is
present from the first moment that something becomes a commodity, and is present there
after.
Hans: The expenditure of human brain is not what makes it a commodity.
(datestring)9 Mar 95 17:00:13 MS(/datestring) You are right, expenditure of the human
brain does not make a commodity. Marx says that commodities are created through the
expenditure of labor, of which thought (or brain power) is a part (You must actually think
about hitting a nail on the head with a hammer).
Hans: Sorry, I meant to say: the expenditure of human brain, nerves, muscles, sense organs, etc. is not what makes
it a commodity. This is what makes it a product, a use value, but not a commodity.
When I read the annotations, I got the impression that a commodity was imbued with
human-like characteristics when it was created. It was as if through some mystical process,
the commodity had been born. Marx used vivid images to illustrate this point. Am I missing
the point? is the answer just the new relationships (social?) that the commodity suddenly
has with other commodities that make it “mysterious?”
Hans: Exactly. And it is also these social relationships which make it a commodity.
Next Message by Ghant is [983].
[1005] Slrrjk: Marx does not really give any empirical evidence in support of his argument
that the commodity is mysterious, and he does not relate to the use value of the
commodity or to the way in which the commodity’s value is measured (abstract human labor).
Instead he supports his argument by explaining that the commodity is very complex
once one takes a closer look at it and that commodities seem to take on a life of their own.
A commodities mystery according to Marx comes from the fact that a commodity can take
on many different forms. A commodity has many different determinations and these determinations
are concealed, undeveloped, and abstract. The abstractness of a commodity and
its tendency to take on a life of its own due to its dependence on social relations gives it its
mysterious quality.
Hans: Good. I would only add that the life which the commodity takes is undeveloped too. Money and capital are
much more “lively” social relations than the commodity.
Next Message by Slrrjk is [1006].
[1012] Mikey: Marx say’s the the mystery comes from how the commodity comes into
being. A commodity is mysterious only when you look deep into it. Then you find hidden
and undeveloped conclusion.

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 163
Hans: Your first sentence is right, but this is much less trivial than it sounds. Therefore I would appreciate if you
could give some more clarifications.
Regarding your very last word: the conclusions which you make with your mind are the reflections of some
real but hidden traits of the commodity.
(datestring)Wed, 15 Mar 1995 14:02:52 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) The hidden and undeveloped
conclusions are the way each person can modify the commodity to fit ones own
needs. Just because commodity is made to help out someone doesn’t mean that someone
else will use it the same way. For example some one may buy a bath tub to use for that
purpose and yet someone else could use it for a flower bed.
Hans: Good idea, using the bathtub as a flower bed. But this does not make the commodity mysterious.
Next Message by Mikey is [1013].
Question 122 is 99 in 1995ut, 133 in 1996sp, 144 in 1997sp, and 136 in 1997ut:
Question 122 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?
[430] Ledzep: The someone could very easily be me. I feel that the manner in which
Marx is explaining a commodity makes the commodity “mystical”. I don’t think that his
explanations are, however, irrational... just very difficult to understand. He is creating a
paradigm through which we are to understand the properties of the commodity, which leaves
the commodity as something mystical. It seems to me that one could just as easily say that it
is not God who is mysterious, it is only the explanation the Nicean Creed gives of God. The
properties of a commodity can be explained as differently as one can describe God. So, yes,
I agree that Marx is mystifying the commodity.
Hans: Some explanations are more powerful than others – in the sense that they enable one to do more with the
thing explained, and that they can even show the errors of competing explanations and show how these errors came
about.
Next Message by Ledzep is [431].
[434] Vansmack: This question gives the hypethetical statement of someone saying that
the commodity is not mysterious, but instead the definition that Marx gives to it that makes
it mysterious. If I were to hear an observer present this I would agree that this question could
be open to interpritation, but however I agree with Marx’s theory of a commodity being mysterious.
I think that the commodity is mysterious because we are not lacking in knowledge
of what a commodity is. I think commodity have their own endowed lives and characteristics
that give them their own personality which make them more complicated or “mysterious”
than they might appear. Marx’s statement that a commodity is quite complicated, abounding
in metaphysical subtleties and theological niceties eloquently describes why the commodity
itself is so mysterious.
Hans: I agree with this answer. I would re-formulate your last sentence as: Marx’s statement that a commodity is
quite complicated, abounding in metaphysical subtleties and theological niceties alludes to this “personality” of the
commodity.
Next Message by Vansmack is [435].
[452] Ida: I agree that Marx does make the explanation of the commodity more and
more mysterious, however, he did that for a reason. This was how Marx explained the
commodity and the reason people in a society are concerned with the commodity. This
164 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
mysterious commodity explains why people master a skill to produce a product to sell for
other commodities as well as the actual value of the commodity.
Hans: Second sentence is poorly structured. You seem to think the mystery of the commodity lies in the fascination
which it generates in people. Marx did not preach abstinence. The “curse” of money to be condemmed to generate
more and more money or otherwise to die is not the same as individual fascination with use values.
Next Message by Ida is [646].
[461] Eddie: I think that Marx is babbling on about use value, value, exchange value,
magnitude of value in the hopes of confusing his readers into beleiving that capital is bad and
wrong. His ideas were tried in a country which no longer exists. If the ideas of Marx were
so sound and positive then it would have lasted for much longer than 60 years. Capitalism
keeps people ALIVE and wanting to live because there is a better life out there if we want it
bad enough. In the socialist state people are living to get by with no hope until they die. That
is why religion in the old Soviet Union is so desired today. People are looking for something
better when they die. In capitalists societies people can look forward to something when
they live. They can set a goal and attain it. Eddie A Capitalist
Hans: You are saying two things here:
(1) Capitalism is good. (2) Marx is incomprehensible.
Regarding (1), I thank you for participating in a class which must go against your grain. Regarding (2), and
looking back over your previous answers, it is very clear that your understanding of Marx is improving. Don’t give
up now.
Next Message by Eddie is [607].
[478] Nena: Judging from this person’s point of view, I don’t think he fully understands
what Marx’s intention and purpose are when he called commodity as being mysterious.
From readings of Marx’s earlier comments on the subject, we can see that commodity is
both mysterious and obious, at least from my point of view, the obious point is that commodity
represented division of labor, production function and it’s exchange value in economical
sense. The hidden and the “mysterious” thing about commodity is according to
Marx that although you can see some pretty obious points on commodity, but it also has a
lot of determinations which is hidden inside a commodity and waiting for theorical analysis,
for example, why does commodity has a double character, from looking at this question, we
can see the complicity and wide range of discussion that can relate to the hidden propety
and theory about commodity. So, Marx is analyzing the hidden mystery about commodity
because through this process, he can study, understand and show it to the rest of us the true
ongoing process of the commodity’s original form and the developing process of the more
developed economic means of society, which is money and capital and how the whole thing
worked since the begining when we unfold the hidden truth of commodity character and its’
mysteriousness.
Hans: Good formulations. I agree.
Next Message by Nena is [487].
[516] Titania: NO. The commodity is mysterious. Marx only alerts the reader to the
good’s usually unseen true nature. How is it not mysterious that an inanimate object is
governing a person’s descision making processes. The commodity should be responsible for
the mystical character traits Marx gives it. Marx has empowered the commodity with human
characteristics as a form of explanation of the true presence a good holds in society. Marx
gives the good existence and a desire that it should express its existence. If Marx did not
allow the commodity to take the mystical form, he would be doing his readers a disservice by

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 165
limiting their understanding . He would not be fully communicating his ideas. And further
more, Marx might be trying to de-mystify the commodity by explaining it on a simple and
a complex level. Maybe once consumers understand commodities, they will let their lives
stop being governed by them. The commodity should not be blamed for its formation and
existence given by people. We are the ones who made the commodity so important in society
(similar to Ehrbar’s earlier question about a king still being a king if his subject didn’t see his
a such.). Man has only himself to blame for this “Dr Frankenstein’s Monster” relationship.
Hans: Here you would need the distinction between social {1} and social {2} . We cannot be made responsible for
the web of social {1} relations we are born into. It is not easy to change this social web so that our lives “stop being
governed” by commodities.
I want to append here a previous submission to this question which you asked me to disregard, but which still
may be helpful for some of the class participants to read.
Question 122. 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?
(datestring)Wed, 1 Feb 1995 13:20:35 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) Yes and no. I disagree
with the point that the commodity is mysterious (this is however, if I even correctly know
what the mysteriousness is ??) I believe the mysteriousness to be that the equivalent form
of any good is that of money. [ I agree with Marx in that the money (ie the paper) is not
and should not be the equivalent form of a good in that different amounts of labor went into
the two thing being exchanged. In this sence, the two goods must have the same amount of
value ie labor time to have equivalent value and be exchanged. If money were more difficult
to make and it took 6 hours to make and I wanted to buy some bread which took 6 hours to
make it would also be ok, except for one glitch...why would I want to make paper money it
is takes labor to make but only gets me a physical embodyment of labor–no use value at all.
It is not even worth making a fire with because it burns too quickly. The person I am trading
with would be getting a bad deal because I am getting the nutrition from the bread, but she
is not getting any use value. ) I agree with Marx in this sense, but I believe money is the
symbol of our labor and it simply an easy way to trade instead of carrying around with us the
“fruits of our labor.” Marx is correct if someone views commodities as he does. I don’t think
he is irrational in his explanation of the mysteriousness. I just don’t think it is as mystical as
he makes it out to be. (All ideas on this topic are subjective. One cannot call Marx right or
wrong in his explanation)
Hans: In Chapter One, Marx derives that money must be a commodity. But this is only the beginning of the development.
In later Chapters (starting with Chapter Three) he allows for the possibility of money being represented by
tokens (like slips of paper) in certain functions, and in Volume Three of Capital he talks about credit money, which
is the modern form of money.
By the way: basically you are not saying that Marx’s explanation is mysterious but that it is wrong.
Next Message by Titania is [597].
[1031] Renegade: At the end of Volume one of Capital, Marx proposes that there are
great contradictions in capitalism and that these contradictions can not be resolved within
capitalism. In a micro level, one can say that the root of this contradiction is in the nature
of commodity. Commodity’s use-value is in contradiction with its exchange-value. This is
the “mysterious” nature of commodity. This “mysterious” contradiction is not a physical
characteristic of the commodity but it is in the social relations that it represents. Products of
human labor existed long before capitalism but it is only under capitalism that they take this
166 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
mysterious character which masks the true social interdependence of people to one another.
Although the essential reality of a commodity is not amenable to our perceptual faculties,
they do exists. Therefore, Marx’s explanation of the nature of commodity is not arbitrary.
It describes a real process that Marx sees as the essential nature of social interdependence
under capitalism.
Hans: Good.
Next Message by Renegade is [1032].
Question 123 is 134 in 1996sp, 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 123 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?
[431] Ledzep: I don’t find a commodity to be mysterious. The fact that I don’t find it to
be mysterious leads me to believe that the mysterious qualities of a commodity, proposed by
Marx, are subjective value judgements. As far as how Mr. Marx would reply to my answer,
I think he would have me re-read his material again.
Hans: Do you think nothing can be really mysterious, it is always in the eyes of the beholder whether something
is mysterious or not, or do you think there are mysterious things out there, but the commodity is not one of them?
(This is not a rhetorical question; I would appreciate an answer.)
(datestring)Wed, 8 Feb 1995 13:43:21 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) I really do believe that
mystery is indeed subjective. I do believe that things can be mysterious, but can always...
eventually be explained.
Hans: Marx. by contrast, thinks that “being mysterious” is a property of the commodity itself. One can fully
understand the commodity, and one can also have complete clarity about what its mysterious character consists in,
this does not make the commodity un-mysterious.
Next Message by Ledzep is [432].
[485] Chp: I don’t agree that whether or not a commodity is “mysterious” is a value
judgement, rather if Marx can persuade you into thinking that there is a mysterious side to
commodities, then debate may ensue, but I don’t feel commodities are so complex as to
deem them mysterious.
Hans: You seem reluctant to call it a value judgment because it is possible to have debates about it. The discussion
in the Annotations at this point suggests (against the prevailing view on these matters) that value judgments are
not necessarily subjective, but that some facts are such that an apropriate description cannot be value-neutral. This
implies that one can discuss about it – because one can always discuss whether a given description of something is
appropriate or not.
Next Message by Chp is [507].
[494] Leo: I agree that the commodity may be referred to as mysterious until the analysis
is followed. Then the mystery is unveiled.
Hans: In other words, you don’t believe that things can be mysterious. If something is called “mysterious” this
always means that the person saying this does not know enough about the thing. I hope you are aware that Marx
acts (in his writings) as if “being mysterious” is a property of the commodity itself.
Next Message by Leo is [495].
Question 124 Can you think of other examples where one can argue that the fact-value
distinction breaks down?

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 167
[442] Hippie: If I am interpreting this correctly, I would say that the fact-value distinction
breaks down when dealing with precious metals and stones. Gold does not have much of
any use value aside from decoration. Gold and lead are only separated by a few protons in
their structure, yet gold is extremely more valuable than lead.
Hans: As long as nobody has figured out a simple way to add those few protons to the lead, this similarity will not
be reflected in the values. This is a valid thought confirming that one cannot derive values from use values directly,
but that values are determined in production. But Question 124 was addressing quite a different topic. (Always
look at these Questions in context).
Next Message by Hippie is [443].
Question 125 is 102 in 1995ut, 132 in 1996sp, 139 in 1997WI, 143 in 1997sp, 135 in
1997ut, 185 in 2002fa, and 253 in 2011fa:
Question 125 Why is it surprising that Marx states, in the last Section of Chapter One of
Capital, that the commodity is “mysterious”?
[353] Johny: It is surprising because Marx explained the commodity perfectly clear in
the earlier stages of the chapter. Marx explains the commodity in the case of the use value
of the commodity. The commodity is not mysterious when it comes to use value. As Marx
explained, a piece of wood can be altered if a table is made out of it. Therefore the use value
of the wood makes it more valuable. When Marx called the commodity “mysterious” it was
surprising. Marx states 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: Although you say it is surprising, you do not sound very surprised.
Here is another attempt, sent 45 minutes later:
(datestring)Wed, 25 Jan 1995 18:01:47 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) Because at first sight a
commodity appears to be extremely obvious. It does not seem at all mysterious. Marx talked
about the use value of commodity. This is generally an easy concept to grasp. This is why it
was surprising Marx made the statement that a commodity is mysterious.
Hans: If one identifies the commodity with the “body of the commodity”, i.e., if one sees merely a use value in the
commodity, then of course the commodity is not mysterious.
Next Message by Johny is [356].
[412] Alex: It is suprising that Marx calls the commodity mysterious for two reasons.
First, it seems inconsistent that Marx would take much of Chapter 1 to explain in detail what
a commodity is, and then turn around and call the commodity a mysterious thing. Second,
it seems strange that his assertion that a commodity is a mysterious thing is not based on the
immediate empirical experience with the commodity.
Hans: Right (assuming my Annotations are right).
Message [412] referenced by [415]. Next Message by Alex is [413].
[415] Sprewell: It is surprising that Marx would refer to commodities as “mysterious”
for two reasons. First, this is not consistent with what he earlier discussed concerning commodities,
namely that they “seem...a trivial and obvious thing”. Secondly, Marx spends a
considerable amount of time explaining in great detail the commodity and then turns around
and refers to it as “mysterious”.
Hans: ok. Very similar to [412].
Next Message by Sprewell is [416].
168 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
[424] Civic: The first reason this is surprising is the timing of his remarks. Marx has
just completed a lengthy explanation and dissection of the commodity and now he calls it
mysterious. Marx covered many extensive aspects of the commodity and now he says that
there is something else that is mysterious about the commodity. He waited until the end
of the chapter to describe this mysterious nature of the commodity. This is also surprising
because up until this point Marx has used empirical evidence and experience to validate
his arguments. But now he talks about the mysterious nature of the commodity as being
something of “mysterious objective phenomena”.
Hans: I don’t get it what you mean with this sentence.
It is surprising to see the word phenomenon because it implicates something that is difficult
to explain or understand.
Hans: This is not how Marx uses the word. “Phenomenon” for a philosopher can be any appearance, anything that
presents itself to the senses. If one talks about it as a “phenomenon” one does not dig into it to find out what is
really behind it, but one takes it as it is given.
Marx talks about these mysterious qualities of the commodity as aspects of social relations
and infers that the commodity can actually take on a life of its own. I find it surprising
to see Marx talk about characteristics that are more difficult to measure and substantiate.
This is a different approach than his previous arguments.
Hans: I agree. In the Annotations I wrote: he jumps to a different level of discourse.
Next Message by Civic is [425].
[435] Vansmack: This question asks why it is surprising that Marx states that a commodity
is “mysterious”? Although I think that Marx is making a very good point when he
describes the commodity as mysterious, many people might not have the same view. When
Marx states the commodity as being mysterious it is really going out on a limb in the theology
of economics. The commodity has always been characterized as a simple and obvious
thing. The mysterious part has usually been thought to be not within the quantity itself,
but instead with what happens to the commodity after it is put into the mainstream. Marx’s
theory needs to be pondered upon before most can understand it.
Hans: Yes, and the purpose of this question was to draw the reader’s attention to how much is going on in Marx’s
text.
Next Message by Vansmack is [438].
[443] Hippie: It is suprising because Marx tells us in the beginning that we must go
into detail in our investigation of the commodity, presumably uncovering all facets of the
commodity. We get to this point and come to find out that there is a bit of uncertainty that
can be attached to commodities. He calls it mysterious, and as students, our job is to solve
mysteries.
Hans: The word “mysterious” is not used here to describe uncertainty in our knowledge of the commodity. Think
of it more as “spooky”, doing unexpected things.
Next Message by Hippie is [448].
[493] Leo: For Marx to describe a commodity and go into such detail about it, only then
to state that it is mysterious. That is what is suprising. If he started out the chapter stating a
commodity is a mysterious thing and then went on to explain why, would make more sense.
But this was not an edited book and was written from begining to end unlike the books we
are used to today.
Hans: Marx was composing this book very carefully and was laboring over every sentence. It took him many years
to complete. He considered very carefully how to structure his argument. It was not an oversight.

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 169
Next Message by Leo is [494].
[613] Sms: It is surprising that Marx states in the last section of Chapter One that the
commodity is mysterious after he has spent so much detail explaining and analyzing the
commodity. It would seem that something which is mysterious would be difficult to describe,
as he has done. Perhaps what Marx meant by mysterious, is inscrutable – something that is
almost sacred.
Hans: No, the commodity does not defy logic. When we say “something is mysterious” we usually do not mean a
particular property of the thing but our lack of knowedge or understanding of the thing. Marx certainly demostrates
by his proceding in the Commodity Fetishism Section that he considers “being mysterious” to be a property of the
commodity itself.
(datestring)Wed, 8 Feb 1995 23:02:12 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) In regards to your response,
please see my answer to question 121. Perhaps the most surprising aspect of Marx’s
remark that he thinks that the commodity is mysterious, is that a capital society, the commodity
is such a tangible aspect of the economy, (obvious and trivial). Marx presents an
entirely new definition of the commodity as explained in great detail in Chapter One.
Hans: Yes, he first takes it apart theoretically, and then he says the parts which he extracted out of the commodity
with his theoretical analysis are mysterious.
Next Message by Sms is [719].
[983] Ghant: It is surprising because Marx has taken the first chapter to completely dissect
and explain the nature and substance of the commodity, and then refer to it as mysterious. I
would assume that when Marx is beginning a discussion, and is trying to lay the foundation
of an argument, he would try to eliminate as many points of contention as possible, and not
begin his thesis by introducing a new one.
Hans: This is one possible reason for surprise. But to resolve this, you should mention the other possibility, that
Marx considers “being mysterious” to be a quality of the commodity itself, not the consequence of our lack of
knowledge about the commodity.
Next Message by Ghant is [984].
[1002] Slrrjk: It is surprising that Marx states in the last section of the chapter that the
commodity is mysterious because it contradicts in many ways what he spent the body of
the chapter explaining. The body of the chapter was a very detailed explanation of what
the commodity is composed of, and to jump to the conclusion in the next section that the
commodity is mysterious after painstakingly explaining what a commodity is made up of
seems rather surprising. It is also surprising that Marx gives evidence for the mysterious
nature of the commodity that is not very empirical. His evidence is based on things which
are hard to measure such as social relations and this appears to be a different approach than
Marx initially took.
Hans: Good. You formulated your surprises as rather strong criticisms of Marx. The next question would therefore
be (but I don’t require you to answer this): does this mean that Marx is wrong?
Next Message by Slrrjk is [1003].
Question 126 is 136 in 1996sp, 138 in 1996ut, 143 in 1997WI, 147 in 1997sp, and 139 in
1997ut:
Question 126 Why does Marx emphasize, and mainstream economics deny, the mysterious
character of the commodity?
[413] Alex: Marx emphasizes the mysteriousness of the commodity because he does
not believe in rational expectations as a reason for this mysterious nature of he commodity.
170 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
Marx uses this mysterious nature to explain events such as inflation, or the business cycle.
Mainstream economics denies the mysterious nature for a number of reasons. One of these
reasons is that “market relations would have to be criticized if it were true that the commodity
had a mysterious nature.” “Rational expectations are a good example for a theory which
claims that the mysterious phenomea of modern capitalism are the outgrowth of nothing
but pure human rationality.” This is an example of mainstream economic’s drive to explain
mysterious events with non mysterious explainations.
Hans: You mean, any explanation which says that the commodity is mysterious is itself mysterious?
(datestring)Wed, 1 Feb 1995 18:44:04 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) I realize that my last
sentence indicates what you suggest, I should have worded it more correctly. I really did
not mean to state that an explanation which says that the commodity is mysterious is itself
mysterious, rather I think it possibly has just as much merit as the mainstream economics
explanation.
Hans: I do invite you to voice any objections and doubts about Marx’s theory which you may have, and to try to
back them up as well as you can.
Next Message by Alex is [578].
[416] Sprewell: Marx emphasizes the mysterious character of the commodity because
it is an explaination of phenomena such as the business cycle, inflation, or fluctuations in
the stock market. Mainstream economists, on the other hand, deny the mysterious character
of these phenomena because market relations would have to be criticized if they were
indeed myterious. They prefer to explain these phenomena with theories such as rational
expectations which claims that human rationality are their real cause.
Hans: Ok.
Next Message by Sprewell is [581].
[420] Telemark: Mainstream economics wants to believe that their understanding and
ability to analyze economics through history has allowed them to uncover and understand
economics to the point that “there need not be belief in a mysterious character.” Question
154 also helped me to better understand and answer this question. Through the many economics
classes that I have taken it is true that economics in general is studied as a hand full
of very fundamental and practical principles. I have encountered very little deviation from
these basic mainstream ideas of macro and micro economics. To be short most main streamers
might say something such as, “It is unnecessary to bog your self down in the depths of
economics most basic foundations, as long as you understand cause and effect and usages
of the necessary items.” Economics is looked at as a subject not as we might study mathematics
in which many basic principles (addition, fractions, numbers etc.) and ideas build
and converge on numerous different applications. (geometry, trig, calculus etc.) Perhaps if
there were a willingness to seek further understanding and teach diversity both in the teacher
and the student, economics could develop and progress, from the set pattern which it seems
economics is taught and understood from.
Hans: I fully agree.
Next Message by Telemark is [584].
[426] Civic: Mainstream economics deny the mysterious character of the commodity
because it would flaw economic theory and predictions. Marx felt that the mysterious nature
of the commodity was in part due to the social relationships surrounding the commodity
and that there is an mystique or uncertainty that the commodity can take on a virtual life of

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 171
its own. Modern economics attempts to account for all unpredictability and fluctuations in
economic conditions, ie; the business cycle, inflation etc. If the commodity indeed contained
this mysterious nature it would be impossible to predict future economic conditions (which
is part of what modern economics attempts to do). Thus, due to the unpredictable nature
modern economics does not believe in the mysterious nature of the commodity because they
want to account for everything, and Marx uses this to explain social phenomenon that occur
that are difficult to account for.
Hans: You are right that in some cases Marx says that an economic outcome is not determined by an economic law,
but by accidental circumstances. Mainstream economics has been considering this possibility only very recently,
in chaos theory. However the issue at hand here is more fundamental than the predictability of the economy. It is
the question whether the economy itself is based on transhistorically valid principles, or whether it is riddled with
contradictions which will eventually lead to its demise.
Next Message by Civic is [540].
[441] Titania: Marx can afford to talk about the true nature of the commodity because his
form of economics and entire value system supports it and allows a commodity other forms
of existence (ie as a good, or as a measure of another good’s value). Mainstream economics
cannot talk about a commodity being mysterious because it defeats the entire basis of the
economy (if not society). We are do not consider goods to be more valuable because they
incorporate more labor–we are almost labor “snobs” because if the labor is done by a less
intelligent or poor person, we think it is inferior (as a whole, for instance, often certain
industries employ a certain kind of worker...high school students, people without college
degrees, etc.) Should consumers start thinking about the value in terms of work put into a
good and how mysterious it is that we can trade money (that often is n o t representative of
the labor we have done) our system would be ruined.
Hans: You asked me to delete the above answer, but I found it interesting too. Therefore here are both answers:
This is a re-answer of my previous answer to 126 (datestring)Thu, 2 Feb 1995 13:39:17
-0700 (MST)(/datestring) I still agree that Marx emphasizes the “mysteriousness” of a commodity
and mainstream econ cannot recognize a good’s “darker side.” Because Marx recognizes
all the social labor that goes into a commodity, he explains that a consumer will not see
the time and skill that went into producing a good; the buyer merely knows that he is buying
a pair of jeans. And on the other side of the relationship, the producer does not know where
his raw materials are coming from. He doesn’t see the other producers (their outputs) making
the goods he consideres his inputs. Marx way of explaining the mysteriousness of a good is
really a form of social recognition (almost a heightened form of labor relations-politeness).
Mainstream economics does not recognize the mysteriousness of a good because consumption
is considered an empty action....it is merely buying things because we need/want them
or because we think it will help us in some way. We do not consider producers because the
good we are buying is an end (in and of itself) to us, there is nothing to it except what it can
provide us with. We do not see the labor time and skill that went into it as valuable (and
actually the labor that went into it is just as important if not more so than the actual good.)
Hans: People not only fail to see the labor in the goods they consume, they do not see that the social qualities of
these goods come from the people’s own social relations.
Next Message by Titania is [501].
[996] Mikey: Marx explains how the economic cycle works in the commodity. The main
streamer just say it is human nature and the markets of each commodity do as they wish with
no such explanation as to why.
172 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
Hans: The mainstreamers do not say the markets do as they wish. They have lots of explanations why markets do
that they do.
Next Message by Mikey is [1012].
Question 128 is 105 in 1995ut, 138 in 1996sp, 142 in 1997ut, and 242 in 2007SP:
Question 128 Compare the one function of labor time in the Robinson example, p. 169:2/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. 171:2/o in Subsection 1.4.4.
[421] Eagle: The one function of labor time in the Robinson example tells us that all of the
labor is being done by only one man. The labor being done corresponds with only his needs.
If he needs shelter, he, and he alone, must build it. The same is true with food, clothing, etc.,
he must fend for himself in all cases. The two functions of labor time in the example of an
“association of free men” shows that with more than one person on the island, the work can
be split up between them. Not only one person is doing all of the labor. They are sharing the
‘responsibilities’ of survival.
Hans: You have to spin on this thought a little more. Not only is Robinson the one who must produce anything,
but once it is produced he is of course the one who is allowed to use the product. With more than one persons,
two questions have to be resolved: (1) what should be produced, and (2) after it is produced, who should get it.
To decide Question (1), the labor time it takes to produce different things is always one of the most important
decision aids. Question (2) could be decided by tradition, by need, by any number of things. However in Marx’s
socialist society people also use labor time to decide Question (2), namely everyone can claim part of the output in
proportion to the labor time put in.
Message [421] referenced by [527]. Next Message by Eagle is [422].
[527] Makarios: The difference between these two examples is that, while Robinson
Crusoe’s labor created products that were used by him alone, the “association” example
creates products that must be divided among the “free men”. Thus, the characteristics of
the first example are individual, while those of the second example are social. The two
examples are alike, in that, the amount of any given product of labor enjoyed by the producer
is dependent upon the amount of labor (quantity) devoted to that particular product. With
the Robinson example, he divided his time between several different productive activities.
In the “association” example, the share of the products that each member recieved depended
upon the amount of labor that each member devoted to production.
Hans: I would have liked to have formulated more explicitly what the one function and the two functions are. This
is probably the only new contribution one can make after [421], unless one comes up with a new angle that was
overlooked by Eagle and myself in this previous submission.
Next Message by Makarios is [528].
Question 129 is 106 in 1995ut, 139 in 1996sp, 147 in 1997WI, 151 in 1997sp, and 143 in
1997ut:
Question 129 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} !
[363] Vida: At birth each individual is thrust into a society that is characterized by a
complex web of relationships. It is at this social {1} level that every individual finds themselves.
The common bond that each individual shares at this level is the fact that they are

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 173
human. The social {2} level is the interaction of the in individual in the social {1} context. At
the social {2} level each individual assumes their interactive position within the network of
relationships. They assume a role and take an active participation in sustaining these relationships.
The difference is that the social {2} level is played out in the arena of social {1}
level. The social {1} level is defined by its common composition. The social {2} is defined
by the reflection of human interaction that occurs with this defined arena. The levels work
in accord and are fundamental in defining each. It is impossible to have social {1} without
having social {2} and vice-versa. An example that helps define these levels can be discussed
as follows: An infant is born into the a world that has already been established by its societal
function. They are born into a series of preexisting relationships. They do not create these
relationships but merely transform the dynamics that makeup the web of relationships. This
level is the level that all humans share. It is the social {1} level. The common bond of being
human links us all together in this social {1} level. The actual transforming of the relationships
takes place on the social {2} level. It is at this level that the infant comes to assume
its roles on this level. They may come to assume the position of brother, of friend, or an
array of other relationships. Their roles are defined, by reflection, through their interactions
in the social {2} level. The social {1} level specifies the relationships and the social {2} level
demonstrates how the relationships are carried out.
Hans: Exactly!
Next Message by Vida is [364].
[438] Vansmack: I think that social {1} and social {2} different but yet the same. Social {1}
is society in general. it is keeping up with everything else. It is making sure that your
business runs well with the rest of society’s business. Although social {1} is very important
in thre broad scheme of things it is not possible without social {2} . Social {2} is the personal
interaction between workers or just between people. it could be described as the public
relations nessacery to achieve social {1} . An example would be Marx’s class conflict theory.
Economically the conflict could not have existed if it were not for the social {2} feelings that
brought it about.
Hans: The connection with class struggle is an interesting one.
Message [438] referenced by [914]. Next Message by Vansmack is [601].
[447] Scarlett: The difference between social {1} and social {2} is that level {1} deals with
the institutions and societies that we group ourselves together with. Social {2} is the direct
relationships that people have with one another. An example that we are all familiar with is
the internet, and our class specifically. We are all connected via computer and have access
to each other on the social {1} level, but by sending messages directly to each other is an
example of our interactions on the social {2} level. Another example would be the idea that
as students at the University of Utah, we are part of a social {1} institution, but we have
social {2} interaction on a day to day basis with the other students we attend classes with.
Hans: Yes, excellent examples.
Next Message by Scarlett is [449].
[451] Allison: All of us at this time find ourselves in a social {1} setting, that is that each
of us are socially related to each other. In our positioning at this time. This social {1} setting
is continually being redefined and transformed by the social {2} contact and interaction that
we all have together in our social {1} setting. These social {2} interactions take place within
the social {1} structure in which we all find ourselves. Example: The social {1} structure in
174 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
which I work is where there are many people, producers etc. This environment and structure
is exemplary of the social {1} . The social {2} can be seen as the interaction in that work place
between all involved that is creating or transforming that web of relationships. This is true
of commodities as well.
Hans: Very good.
Next Message by Allison is [460].
[472] Marlin: All humans are bound by social {1} relations between one another. Everyone
in this class is connected through a social {2} level by communicating through e-mail on a
daily basis. This is the medium of social {2} communication. The fact that we “all” have
open e-mail accounts is the social {1} bond we have.
Hans: Very good example, right under our noses.
Next Message by Marlin is [476].
[651] Tsunami: Social {1} refers to the maze of relationships that pre-exist human individual
control or determination. Social {2} refers to how direct human individual interaction
and contact with other humans serves to maintain and feed the pre-existing relations of the
superstructure. An example of social {1} would be the institution of racism (or sexism, or
classism) which pre-exists individual human control and exists inspite of the individuals’ attempts
to harness it. Social {2} would be the expression of racism that determines individual
human relations such as discrimination on the work place, or the enforcement of Jim Crow
laws during the 1950s and early 1960s.
Hans: Excellent examples.
Next Message by Tsunami is [652].
[719] Sms: The social {1} form is the institutions such as the factories, offices, etc., where
the workers come to perform a function. The social {2} form is the interaction of the many
workers. These social {2} interactions take place within the social {1} structure.
Hans: Yes, social {1} can encompass institutions. It can also encompass ownership relations, social norms people
have to obey, etc.
Next Message by Sms is [720].
Question 130 is 107 in 1995ut:
Question 130 a. Is a commodity mysterious because of its use value?
b. Is it mysterious because it takes labor, i.e., the expenditure of human brain, nerves, muscles,
etc., to produce it?
c. Is a commodity mysterious because of the relevance of the labor time necessary to produce
it for the magnitude of its value?
d. Is a commodity mysterious because the labors performed in a commodity-producing society
are part of an overall social labor process?
[217] Darci: Commodity is mysterious because the labors performed in a commodityproducing
society are part of an overall social labor process. If value is determined by a
use-value that society places on it and its use-value determines its exchange value then the
mystery of commodity must be affiliated or inseparably connected to society in some way.
The form of the commodity’s value then must therefore come from a socially determined
set of “values.” If this reasoning is correct and if Marx is correct in stating that value is the
human labor involved in a commodity’s production then it is true that the mystery comes
form the social labor process. It can’t be from is use-value because Marx explains how

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 175
this occurs. Labor itself because it is abstracted to be equal is also explained in relation
to magnitude. The only remaining factor that is unexplained is how society determines the
form of value.
Hans: You are getting there. I’d just like to nitpick one one passage. You wrote:
If value is determined by a use-value that society places on it and its use-value determines
its exchange value then the mystery of commodity must be affiliated or inseparably
connected to society in some way. The form of the commodity’s value then must therefore
come from a socially determined set of “values.”
Hans: What you call “the use value that society places on it” or the “socially determined set of ‘values’” is simply
the fact that every commodity takes up part of the finite pool of labor power available in this society. It could be
used for this and it could be used for that, and this is why things are exchangeable. But to the exchangers it all
looks quite different, and this is what this Section is all about.
Next Message by Darci is [218].
[356] Johny: a. Is a commodity mysterious because of its use value? No, a commodity is
not mysterious because of its use value. There is nothing mysterious about use-value. The
use value is extremely obvious. b. Is it mysterious beause it takes labor, i.e., the expenditure
of human brain, nerves, muscles, etc., to produce it? Yes, it begins getting mysterious when
talking about the expenditure of the human brain to produce the commodity.
Hans: I love it.
c. Is a commodity mysterious because of the relevance of the labour time necessary
to produce it for the magnitude of its value? Yes, Marx points out that it reflects the social
relation between objects, a relation that exist seperate from the producers. d. Is a commodity
mysterious because the labors performed in a commodity-producing society are part of an
overall social labor process? Yes, the commodity reflects the social characteristics of men’s
own labour, as explained by Marx.
Hans: Your answers show that you are working on the text.
Next Message by Johny is [361].
[368] Marlin: Since an entire society is involved in producing commodities, Marx calls
a commodity mysterious. I think he means that each commodity is involved in production
of the entire labor force. Since its production is dependant upon the labor force, which is
of society, that is who is responsible for assigning its exchange value. Society sets the tone
for the exchangeability of a commodity in relation to another. In turn Marx is saying the
mystery of a commodity comes from this social process of production. I am not sure if I
have the right train of thought. This question caught my eye and then confused me. Please
respond.
Hans: Social relations are not automatically mysterious just because they are social – although it may seem so
from our capitalistic experience. We see how others act and we are tempted to have very little faith in our fellow
humans. Until we realize that they do not do voluntarily what they do but that they are the agents through whom
blind social forces run their course. After this insight we have to re-focus our attention. The game is no longer:
catch the evil capitalist, but now the question becomes: what is it that keeps our society under the spell of the blind
accumulation of capital. This is the question Marx tries to start to answer in the Section about the Fetish-Like
Character of the Commodity.
Next Message by Marlin is [472].
[432] Ledzep: The commodity is mysterious because the labors are part of an overall
social labor process. A relation exists apart from and outside of the producers. That is,
176 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
something that resulted as a product of my labor exists outside of me but has its form manifested
in relation to the products of others’ labors which are also manifested outside and
apart from them which contribute to the aggregate total of commodities.. almost living entities
in themselves. This sounds like a pseudo-religious social communion with a Freudian
flavor.
Hans: Communion is a very good example. By ingesting this piece of bread, you become one with Jesus. And by
the exchange of your product, your labor becomes one with all other labors.
Next Message by Ledzep is [612].
[468] Golfer: NO, Marx refers to the commodity as being mysterious, I think this is based
on the fact that several use values are required such as labor, intelligence, etc. to result in a
commodity.
Hans: You are trying to find the mystery in the use value of the commodity, something which Marx explicitly
excluded.
The production of a commodity is the direct result of labor. Thus, labor is then a determining
factor in the exchange value. The society, or labor force, then establishes what is
exchangable, and for what. Marx is ultimatly saying that the mystery of a commodity comes
from the society, which provides the production.
Hans: This is right, but the background knowledge that all this is somehow social should not blind us to the fact
that here social relations are crystllized an a thing and give this thing mysterious qualities.
Next Message by Golfer is [469].
[497] Braydon: According to Marx, the use value is not a mysterious part of the commodity.
It is not a mystery that man transforms “forms of a material” to suit his own needs. When
talking about human labor in the abstract, ie. the“ expenditure of human brain” etc., this is
also not a mysterious part of the commodity. Marx states that human labor is variable, but
labor is work and we must use our body and all the physiological fucntions that go with it,
in order to produce the work. This occurs in every country and in every production process.
The magnitude of value is also not mysterious because it is also necessary in every situation
and we do not judge the quality of labor with the quantity. Again, this is not a mysterious
part of commodities. The production process is usually a part of a “social web” . There is a
lot of social interaction involved. When people work for each other labor takes on a social
form. This also occurs in every production process and really no mystery involved. The
mystery occurs in the “form of value”. As I understand this it is where we attach a price to
the commodity, in order to exchange it. In fact, I do agree with this because I find the whole
idea of supply and demand very mysterious. I don’t know if this has anything to do with it,
but the stock market crash of 1987 is very much a mystery and there is really no concrete
conclusion.
Hans: Just look at the Mexican currency crisis again. Huge amounts of money which represent real wealth suddenly
just seem like baloons which can pop and dissolve into nothing.
Next Message by Braydon is [622].
Question 131 is 108 in 1995ut, 141 in 1996sp, 149 in 1997WI, 154 in 1997sp, 147 in
1997ut, 246 in 2007SP, 256 in 2008fa, and 298 in 2010fa:
Question 131 What is a relation of production? Explain carefully whether or not value is a
relation of production.

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 177
[402] Frosty: The relation of productioin can be defined as the social relations of producers.
I believe that value is a relation of production. Marx wroted that commodity producers
treat their products as commodities, hence as values, and in this form they bring together
their individual, private labor into relations with each other as aggregate human labor. The
social relation of producers can be expressed through their products and their labor. The
magnitude of value can be expressed through labor and commodities can relate to each other
through their exchange-values. Therefore, values can be considered a relation of production.
Hans: Yes, that was the answer I was looking for.
Next Message by Frosty is [410].
[487] Nena: A relation of production is the social relations between the producers, which
is a relationship between the products,
Hans: It is a relationship between the products only under capitalism. In other societies, there were also relations
of production, but they had often the form of direct coercive relations between the individuals.
this leads us to discuss and understand individual’s social relation to social aggregate
labor takes the form of a social relation of the products which has its own existance outside
that individual person. I think value is included in a relation of production. Because within
production function, commodity form consisted of value relation of the products of labor,
and since the first step of mysterious character of the commodity is a property of my own
labor appears as a property of the product, and the second step is that my social relation to
social aggregate labor takes the form of a social relation of the products which has its own
existence outside me. At this point, Marx argues that producers also relates to their aggregate
labor, and bring about a social relation within production and with respect to production and
value plays a vital role in the relation of production, since it is the core connection bewteen
producers. So, I think value is definitely included in a relation of production.
Hans: Yes.
Next Message by Nena is [491].
[690] Tuan: According to Marx’s point of view of relation of production, I feel that the
relation of production is defined as the social relations of producer. The social of commodity
producers refer to value. The social relation of producers can be expressed through
their product and labor. Also the magnitude of value can be expressed through labor and
commodities that relate to each other through exchange value.
Hans: You act as if the social relations between the producers always have to go through their products. There are
many societies in which producers relate to each other directly, without hiding behind their products as they do in
a commodity society.
Next Message by Tuan is [691].
Question 133 is 110 in 1995ut, 158 in 1998WI, and 186 in 2001fa:
Question 133 Bring examples of people trying to use the social powers of the objects they
are dealing with for their benefit. Are these attempts successful in the examples you bring,
and if not, why not?
[491] Nena: The examples would be that a lot of U.S congressmen and senator using
their social power, which is the power to represent the people and a law maker to benefit
on their own execution of peronal interest and gaining, the most obious case is that they
receive money and donation from supposly so called special interest group to work with
the big corporation to gain the best interest in policy and regulation to the big corporations.
178 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
And many of them uses their social stutas as a form of social power to make things a lot
of easier for them and they try to distinguish it from the ordinary people. These abuse of
power certainly failed to win the support of public, and it’s those people who have made the
whole congress, senate and U.S government a battleground for personal political ambition
and gains regardless to public’s real interest. These social powers certainly are successful in
bring personal benefits and desires. But on the other hand, it also backfires that the public’s
angry and distrust toward the politicans and in a whole, because of these social powers from
certain people, it makes the government less efficient than it should be.
Hans: And your reaction is exactly what is expected of a good citizen: Never have any doubts about the kind of
government we have. On the contrary: your worry is that this bad publicity makes this government less efficient.
Next Message by Nena is [620].
[507] Chp: I see many examples of this in business. One businessman may be a Lexus
salesman and another a golf pro. The golf pro may be interested in purchasing a Lexus and
pursuade the salesman to give him a deal on the car in exchange for a favor down the road
at the country club. Maybe some free lessons or a deal on some clubs or no green fees or
something else. In this case they both know how their products affect other people and they
know that they can bend the rules to personally gain from their position. Most often these
attempts are successful and both people are happy.
Hans: Yes. We notice it much more in these individual cases than when it is done on a grand scale and built into
the basic institutional framework of our economy.
Next Message by Chp is [508].
Question 134 is 111 in 1995ut, 144 in 1996sp, 146 in 1996ut, 159 in 1998WI, 166 in
1999SP, 187 in 2001fa, 201 in 2002fa, 208 in 2003fa, 236 in 2004fa, 231 in 2005fa,
251 in 2007SP, 256 in 2007fa, 261 in 2008fa, 275 in 2009fa, 303 in 2010fa, and 277 in
2011fa:
Question 134 How does Marx’s use of the term “fetishism” compare with its modern dictionary
definition?
[392] Ann: The modern dictionary definition of fetishism is as follows: belief in or the use
of fetishes; the compulsive use of some object or part of the body...A fetish being defined as:
an object regarded with awe, being the embodiment or habitation of a potent spirit or having
magical potency. Marx’s use of the term “fetishism” describes how outside occurrences can
effect the world of commodities and therefore can pollute how mankind views them.
Hans: It is always difficult to come up with a nutshell definition of fetishism, but I would not have come up with
this one. Can you elaborate a little?
Marx’s definition differs from the dictionary definition. The only way I can think of
comparing the two would be to look at the fetish behavior from the dictionary example as
disturbing. Marx finds the existence of fetishism in the world of commodities disturbing,
therefore comparing the two definitions.
Hans: To find something “disturbing” is a very subjective reaction. Marx very studiously tried not to give such a
subjective reaction to the topic under discussion. Instead of saying: I don’t like capitalism because of the income
inequalities it generates, he tries to find the intrinsic limitations of capitalism. A society which by necessity creates
misperceptions in its members about the character of social relations is like a society with a blindfold on. This is
an intrinsic flaw of capitalism.
Next Message by Ann is [393].

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 179
[401] Frosty: The modern dictionary defines “fetishism” as the magical powers of an
object. Marx’s use of the term “fetishism” is opposite of the modern dictionary. It is written
that in a commodity-society, people are forced to treat commodities as beings with supernatural
properties. Marx writes that
Hans: What you are saying now and below, under your second “Marx writes that” is not Marx himself but my
interpretation of Marx. Sorry, maybe I should have made this clearer.
people are not really forced to think this
Hans: (i.e, think that the commodities really have supernatural properties)
but instead their beliefs arise from their own activity. He calls this false-interpretation or
false-consciousness. Marx writes that this fetishism sticks immediately to products of labor
produced as commodities. This fetishism is an illusion deceived by the fetish-like character
which is a property possessed by social relations.
Hans: Good. This answer shows that you carefully worked through the text and/or the Annotations.
Next Message by Frosty is [402].
[422] Eagle: Marx talks about fetishism as having supernatural powers with some relationship
to religion. The modern dictionary definition says that fetishism is something with
magical powers. It doesn’t mention religion at all.
Hans: People would get upset if they were to read in the dictionary that there is a relationship between religion
and superstition.
(datestring)Tue, 7 Feb 1995 21:24:42 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) I’m sorry, I misread this
question when I originally answered it. You are right, people would get upset if the dictionary
stated such a thing. The answer I should have submitted would show that Marx’s use
of the term fetishism is almost the same meaning as the modern dictionary definition, but as
you said, the dictionary doesn’t mention religion because people wouldn’t like it.
Hans: Let me get serious again. My above remark was intended to be light and witty, but it seems to have disturbed
you, and I am sorry about this. Your observation that Marx talks about “some relationship to religion” while the
modern dictionary you consulted “doesn’t mention religion at all” did not strike me as a very profound analysis.
I tried to convey this by my joking remark that the reason why these dictionaries leave out religion is not very
profound either. You seem so determined to guess what I want you to say and to supply me with the “right” answer
that these nuances escaped you. Your “corrected” answer that “Marx’s use of the term fetishism is almost the same
meaning as the modern dictionary definition” is again the parody of an “analysis.” In case you are still in the dark
about what I want you to do: I want you to be somewhat familiar with the assigned materials (Marx’s book, the
Annotations, and the Archive) and above all to think for yourself.
Next Message by Eagle is [423].
[458] Eddie: From Webster fetishism means–an object believed to procure for its owner
the service of a spirit lodged within it. From Marx I think his definition of a commodity
is that we all have a fetishism with being social. We only need certain goods to survive;
ie. food, shelter, transportation, and the like. When in a social context humans suddenly
become fetish with commodities. We want commodities to show the Jones’s how socially
acceptable we are. We are wasting our time on producing commodities that are of no value.
Like diamonds and pearls. These items have no use-value but as a commodity they are given
a high value.
Hans: These petty human immodesties and vanities are something to laugh about. But generally we don’t laugh
about them but treat them like the devil. I think we do this because we sense that our whole society is driven by
the tendency to expand which is inherent in the monetary form of wealth. It is this social tendency which Marx
criticizes, not the occasional greedy individual who is an expression of this social tendency but not its originator.
180 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
Next Message by Eddie is [461].
[470] Johny: How does Marx use of the term “fetishism” compare with its modern dictionary
deffinition? Marx uses the word fetishism, as something that can be avoided when
a person is dealing with a commodity. Marx states “I call this the fetishism, which attaches
itself to the products of labour as soon as they are produced as commodities, and is therefore
inseparable from the production of commodities”. The person that is decieved by the fetish
like character is the actual fetishism.
Hans: Yes. And how does that relate to what one normally thinks about when one hears the word “fetishism”?
(datestring)Wed, 1 Mar 1995 15:17:09 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) When one hears of the
word fetishism they think of the magical power of an object, that protects its owner.
Hans: You mean, there is no relationship?
Next Message by Johny is [471].
[480] Pegasus: Dictionary definition of fetishism: 1) Inanimate object worshipped by
primitive peoples for its supposed inherent magical powers or as being inhabited by a spirit,
principle etc. Irrationally reverenced. 2) (Psych) Abnormal stimulus, or object of sexual
desire. (Oxford Advanced Learner) Marx states that the fetishistic (?) character of the commodity
stems from the fact that the social characteristics of peoples labor if reflected back
to them as objective characteristics inherent in the products of their labor. They mistake
this character, which they have impressed on it themselves through production, for being the
natural character of the commodity. Well, in my opinion the dictionary definition and the
definition Marx gives of fetishism are quite different from one another, but they have some
similarities. Both definitions entail some form of social behavior, and both talk about inanimate
objects as the object of peoples fascination. Marx does not bring magic or spirituality
into his explanation though. The second dictionary definition (psych) defines fetishism as
abnormal stimulus of sexual desire. Well some might argue that commodities are abnormal
stimulus of peoples desired, although not sexual....
Hans: Ok. You got it.
Next Message by Pegasus is [482].
[486] Stalin: The modern dictionary definition of fetishism is “the magical powers of an
object.” I think the dictionary term and what Marx is saying are comparable. In a capitalistic
society, people view material possessions with a fetish and believe that obtaining them will
produce happiness, or social standing. People believe obtaining certain commodities will
produce a “magical” social gain amongst their peers.
Hans: You are on the right track, but I would have liked you to say more than that they are “comparable”.
Next Message by Stalin is [695].
[652] Tsunami: The definition of fetishism is particularly interesting to me because of
how it is defined by deconstructionists and post-structuralists in language theory ranging
from Lacan to Derrida to Barthes. As it is defined in language theory, the fetishization of
an object, or a commodity (since the object is often times exchanged), gives that commodity
the power of usurpation; that is to say, the commodity can syphon off attention, energy and
movement ever so discretely precisely because, as Marx asserts, fetishism serves to veil the
commodity. Marx’s definition of fetishism describes it as the false consciousness which
blurs the commodity’s supernatural properties having been assigned by relations {2} , leading
people to believe that this commodity has a life of its own. Of personal interest is the veiling
of fetishism even as it arrests action, becoming so entrenched in the commodity that only

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 181
by sifting through layers does an individual in society recognize the relations that have been
woven into the fabric of that commodity.
Hans: By comparing it not with the dictionary definition but the post-structuralist definition you are giving an
interesting extension to the question. The formulation “fetishization” of the commodity seems to imply to me that
it is done by the individuals. For Marx, the main part of it, the fetish-like character, is a social given, and this then
pushes individuals into thinking a certain way.
Next Message by Tsunami is [653].
Question 135 is 112 in 1995ut, 145 in 1996sp, 152 in 1997WI, 159 in 1997sp, 152 in
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 135 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?
[419] Telemark: I wish to respond to this question because I think it is a very interesting
one to think about and analyze. Unfortunately I’m still in question why Marx uses both the
terms “commodity fetishism” and “a fetish like character.” I’m sure if I am grossly wrong in
my answer Dr. Ehrbar will curb my ignorance.
Hans: I apologize to everyone in class if my comments often seem brief and grumpy. This does not mean that I
think you are ignorant.
Every capitalistic producer would like to have a few insatiable products on the market,
for this to the capitalist translates to “the sky is the limit” in profits and profit making. What
they are really doing is exploiting consumers in more than one way. First, by having them
purchase commodities which, other than psychologically needed are not really needed or
would not other wise bought. Secondly, the capitalist is simpling “gouging” society for
profits. (some might argue this is all that is ever done in the market place.) Marx did not
refer to “commodity fetishism” in exactly this way, and it does not completely contradict
his thinking. But, would give rise to an amendment. Marx uses a religious analogy to first
explain commodity fetishism. Marx also refers to religion as the opiat of the people, or
a deceiving character that leads society into a great wonderment and great expectations of
God. Here the insatiable commodity is also deceiving society, and the fetishism “sticks”
to it. Commodities which are bought for some underlying psychological expectation which
are purchased and then abandoned from there normal use value. This occurs because many
times simple possession of the item(s) resolves this feeling of necessity.
Hans: Yes, amendment is a good characterization. It is the transpositon of a social fact on the psyuchological
plane.
Next Message by Telemark is [420].
[1032] Renegade: Conspicuous consumption, as Veblen puts it, is a result of human
alienation. Marx’s theory of alienation encompasses the idea of “fetishism of commodities.”
Whereas Feuerbach only explored the religious alienation, Marx showed that under
182 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
capitalism, general human condition and alienation is rooted deeper in the relations of production.
Lack of control of workers over their work cripples the process of objectification
of their subjectivity. In short, it thwarts the human development. One dimension of human
alienation is alienation from fellow human beings. These essential human relations appears
as relations between things i.e., commodities. This renders commodities their fetish-like
character. An alienated human being resorts to conspicuous consumption to compensate for
unmet needs. When people get depressed they go shopping! But this is a temporary remedy
like an Aspirin for a head ache. Thus, we can see that there is no contradictions in these
ideas and they are related to each other.
Hans: Good.
First Message by Renegade is [185].
Question 137 is 163 in 1998WI:
Question 137 What does Marx mean by the statement that the “dialectical form of presentation
is only correct if it knows its limits”? [mecw29]505:1-2.
[444] Yoda: According to Marx, “dialectical form” means following the inner logic of
its subject. From what I understand, the statement in question number 137 says that after
science has proved everything there is to know about something, you can’t change anything
about this particular something. For example: Geologists know everything there is to know
about coal. If someone came along with new information, they would be incorrect because
everything about coal is already known. If everything wasn’t known about coal, someone
could come along with new ideas and discoveries about it.
Hans: This prohibition to probe too deeply into things because the authorities already know it all is not at all what
Marx had in mind. He was not warning against thinking in general; he was only pointing out that one certain
research method is not applicable in all circumstances.
Next Message by Yoda is [737].
[364] Vida: It is sad to say but I like almost all people would act differently in situation
“a” relative to situation “b”. Since you have direct interaction with those that are consuming
your product, you are sure to act differently. In situation “b”, my use value of my product and
the technology of my labor would directly evolve in terms that are relative to my relationship
with those for whom I am producing. If I like the person extremely then my use value of my
product and the technology of my labor would develop quite rapidily because I would hope
to please them. Also, the development of the use value of my product and the technology of
my labor might depend on the amount of use value that I am receiving from the products that
they are supplying me with. If I am receiving products that I feel are not equivalent to my
outputs then I may show my disdain for the shoddy work and may delay the full evolution
of the use value and the utilization of my labor. If what I am receiving in return is above and
beyond by current outputs then I might speed up the evolution process to show my gratitude
for receiving such high quality products. All of these factors may come into play if I have a
direct relationship with those that I am producing for.
Situation “a” does not have these same dynamics. I may produce shoddy work just because
I prefer to or I may choose to produce above par work because that it what I have
likened to. I may not bring out the best of my abilities in my art because I may prefer not

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 183
too, but with having a direct relationship may gear me to produce my best or worst in relative
terms to the dynamics of the relationship.
Hans: You are bringing up an issue implicitly which I have in mind too. I did not think of it when I wrote up this
question originally, but after receiving a couple of quarters’ worth of student answers to this question it dawned on
me. The way you describe it, situation “b” may not be that good after all! In situation “b” people use production
to get even with each other, or to express their gratitude to each other, or whatever. The tangle of social relations
they find themselves in may become quite suffocating. Situation “a” as you describe it is much more a situation of
freedom. Is this an argument for the market, that its anonymity gives us some needed free space?
Message [364] referenced by [2012fa:204]. Next Message by Vida is [365].
[391] Ann: No, I would not act differently in Situation A than in situation B. I would
not act differently because I will not bring the products of my labor into relations with other
people. The products of my labor are simply material objects and should not interfere with
human relations.
Hans: Very refreshing to hear someone proclaim this principle, in our society, in which the products of labor
(represented by money) very much interfere with human relations.
The use-values of the products and the technologies of labor would evolve in the expressions
of the human labor producing them and not the actual products themselves. But in
time, the products of the human labor would evolve due to the changing of use-values in the
human labor.
Hans: Sorry, I don’t understand what you mean here. What do you mean by “expressions”?
(datestring)Thu, 2 Feb 1995 09:58:48 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) By expressions I am referring
to the actions, thoughts, or projections made by individuals that would effect the
products.
Hans: I get it now. I would say that not only the producers but also the users will accumulate knowledge which
can be used to develop technology further.
Next Message by Ann is [392].
[439] Deadhead: I would act no differntly in situation A than B. In situation A I would try
to produce the highest quality goods in order to get the highest price from potential buyers.
As well in situation B I would also produce the highest quality goods possible because I
would hope to get the same quality goods in return for my own. Over time I may change
my production in situation A. I may choose to produce more products more quickly but of
lesser quality to maximize profits by selling a higher volume of goods at a slightly lower
price. In situation B I would continue to produce high quality work unless the commodities
I was receiving in return for my goods were not of high quality, therefore I would lessen my
own quality and labor time in order to make the exchange even.
Hans: Good and perceptive.
Next Message by Deadhead is [729].
[448] Hippie: In situation a, I would probably not put quite as much effort into my
commodity as in situation b. In situation a, your main drive is money. This is true for
situation b, but here you are more easily held accountable for your work. I work at domino’s
pizza. If a customer complains excessively, or is a regular buyer, etc., There may be a little
extra effort put in the pizza to insure a good product. The computer system there alerts you
to a first time customer so that their pizza comes out perfectly. Over time, the two different
courses would evolve the same. As a producer, you face competition and must keep up with
the current technology of your product.
184 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
Hans: Your example seems to contradict your thesis that technology will not be affected by the social arrangement.
In situation b, there will be less competition and no computer buzzing at you when it is a new customer.
Next Message by Hippie is [559].
[459] Chance: This is a very interesting question. I found the other responses by ann and
vida very insightful. I did not think about the fact that vida brought up of freedom. Adding
my 2 cents worth, I tend to believe that people would act differently in case b than a. In
case b, there seems to be more at stake than just production. There is relations at stake.
This includes doing favors and helping. Additionally, if I knew that I would be “trading”
products with someone, and that I would receive theirs, I would be sure to do my absolute
best work so that they would do the same. I would want to receive the best/high quality. In
situation a, I would be isolated from the end-user in a sense. Therefore, I am not sure that one
could guarantee the best product every time. There is no personal risk involved. Interesting
enough, treating the cases differently arises from the simple fact that “I” have something at
stake. We, as people, are always looking out for “number one” (ourselves). If we don’t see a
link between what we are producing and ourselves, I believe our level of interest in the finest
high quality product production possible decreases dramatically. (whew, what a sentence!)
Hans: This is very right. And I am inclined to think: If the people in the failed Soviet-Union type socialist
experiments did not see that they were working for themselves, then this is because they were indeed not working
for themselves.
Next Message by Chance is [462].
[463] Zaskar: In situation A I believe I would feel like I had complete creative freedom
to create whatever piece of art I felt compelled to make. My only criteria would be to try to
make something marketable or somehow make my piece desireable to others. In situation B,
on the other hand, my perception would be somewhat slanted towards the tastes of those for
whom I was creating the piece. I would probably not be creating pieces entirely interesting
to me but to my known customers. Over time, the use value of my product in situation
B would probably lead me to create technology to help me make the product quicker and
more economically. Under situation A I would likely still be more free to experiment with
new ideas and technology that could likely lead me to significant discovery in the future.
Essentially, I believe that the difference of the two scenarios is the degree of freedom that
the artisan would work under. Pressure to perform a certain way would likely stifle creative
discovery.
Hans: Ok. I also think that freedom is an issue here.
Next Message by Zaskar is [464].
[469] Golfer: No, I think I would act the same in both situations because labor provided
and labor consumed can not be compared because they are not equal use values. The products
of my labor have use values to other people. The products I consume have use values to
me. Human relations have no effect on the products of our labor, and will not be a factor in
the technology and evolution of our products. Technology and evolution will be contributing
factors if I attempt to change the exchange value of my products in the society.
Hans: Ok.
Next Message by Golfer is [561].
[482] Pegasus: I both might and might not act differently in situation a and in situation
b. It would be likely that if I were in situation a I would have more pressure put on me
to evolve technologically and to produce commodities in such a way that people would
actually buy them. If I was in situation b, there would probably be less pressure on me to

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 185
evolve in that way. This is because my relationship with my “customers” would be one of
mutual dependence. If they stopped trading their goods with mine, it would not be sure that
they would find someone else that produced what I produced and that would actually want
what they produced. In situation a that relationship of mutual dependence would not exist
in the same way. Therefore, there would be more pressure to satisfy the demands of my
“customers” in situation a than in situation b.
Hans: These pressures are all one can predict. Whether these different pressures will elicit different reactions in
every single case is something one simply cannot know beforehand.
Next Message by Pegasus is [571].
[488] Sammy: I believe I would act very differently in these two situations. I think that
if I was just producing to sell to any buyer, I would put my efforts into producing quicker,
and cheaper, without sacrificing quality. The use value of my product would change little.
The technology I use would probably only change as others came up with better ways to do
what I am doing, rather than a result of something I came up with. In the other situation,
where I know, and have a relationship with the buyers, I think I would seek different goals.
I would ask my buyers how I could improve my product so it is more useful to them. Thus
the use value of my product would increase over time. Also the technology would change
more rapidly as I tried to find ways to make my product better for my buyers. Since this is
a recripocal relationsip I would hope my buyers to do the same to make their products more
useful to me.
Hans: Ok.
Next Message by Sammy is [490].
[504] Asmith: Situation B: If I am fixing my house up to keep it, or for someone who
is producing something for me, I take care to make sure that I make no short cuts, and that
everything is done to my satisfaction. After all someone I know will be enjoying the fruits
of my labors, maybe me. But we have to consider this in the whole prospective. Situation
A: Most people will not take the same pride when renovating a house (or in producing any
product) when the house is to be offered for sale. Yes the renovator must concern herself
with the appearance of quality in order to maximize the exchange value. But behind the
sheetrock and under the paint and carpet, it’s buyer beware. Over time renovator A can get
real fast at renovating. Some of the poor workmanship that went unnoticed in previous house
sales encourage future substandard work. The renovator will look for new, faster ways of
producing her commodity. Her skills will improve and her profits will increase. More and
more she will become less personally attached to the commodity as her proud creation. Her
renovating projects will just become a means to an end. But the story doesn’t need to stop
here. As the renovator improves her skills and increases her profits she she may choose to
spend less time working and more leisure time pursuing fulfilling activities. She decides to
starts her own renovating business and teaches others to renovate. She has a profit sharing
plan. Since she has been working on her higher needs in her leisure time, she now realises
that “if the goal is money that you loose, even if you get it.” She teaches her employees to
serve the customer, and that by so doing the money will take care of its self. They improve
their quality of work. Her business has come to be respected. The demand for the houses
her appreciative employees renovate increase. She uses the profits to further serve in business,
increasing productivity, and conscientiously increasing the level of not only exchange
value but use value too (through the desire for service). Her employees voluntarily choose
186 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
to exchange their labor for the wages and profit sharing they receive. In her spare time, the
renovator/business owner serves on a government environmental protection committee. Although,
there must be a new paradigm in capitalism for this to be possible on a large scale,
there must also be a new paradigm for socialism to be a viable alternative as well. Mean
while in situation B, the renovator began to produce lovely houses, very well crafted of the
finest materials available (which were not all that fine, and limited). Unfortunately, because
of the small market with only limited specialization (and thus less productivity), she was
forced to work longer hours to buy the the same amount of food that she could have bought
in situation A. Regrettably, she was unable to expend much energy on her higher needs. With
limited capital for improving productivity, it would be unlikely that progress in technology
would improve. Although her house started out to be very lovely, when the time came to
finish it, and maintain it, she was out creating exchange value so that her and her family
could have the bare necessities. Her house went unfinished. Economic constraints prohibited
her from doing the quality of work that she wanted to, and in the end, her craftsmanship
(use-value) became worse even than it would have been in situation A. Her market could not
afford the nice job she would like to have done. Just a thought experiment.
Hans: Very interesting!
Next Message by Asmith is [649].
[508] Chp: Initially I would act the same way in situation a and situation b. At first I
would want my item for sale to be the best it could be so that I could establish myself in the
marketplace and recruit clientele. Once this has been established, I can get a feel of what the
expectations my consumers have and I can choose to work within these expectations or push
the boundaries to see what happens. The responses my consumers have to my decisions will
help me make future considerations on my actions. It is difficult to say whether or not the
use value of my product and the technology of my labor will evolve differently over time. It
depends on the situation. If I do not rely on my consumer for goods in return, then I may
continue without desiring to change my method of production as long as the consumer seems
satisfied (assuming everything else remains constant). If I consume what is produced by my
client, I may be more apt to ensure his or her satisfaction, or I may alter my production to
match what I feel is equivalent to what is being exchanged whether that adjustment is an
improvement or a lack there of. It depends on how meaningful that relationship is to me.
Hans: Ok.
Next Message by Chp is [621].
[678] Sinikka: In situation b I would use better technology and avoid creating shoddy
products, because the people who receive the product know me and I could not stand the
idea that they think that I am a bad artisan. It would also be in my best interest to do good
work, because I want to receive good product from them in exchange. In situation a I would
create something that “sells” well; pay more attention to the appearance and artistic value of
the product.
Hans: Good.
Next Message by Sinikka is [679].
[704] Cmanson: Yes. In senerio A you would probally try to make the product as quickly
as possible. You would lose the concern about quality of your product as long as you could
still get your desired price for this product. On the other hand if you knew the people who
would be using your product and in turn had to trade with them and use their product you

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 187
would want to make sure your product was the best it could be in order to get the others to
do the best they could on the products they produced for you.
Hans: There are more dimensions to this, which are discussed in the archive.
(datestring)Sun, 12 Mar 1995 21:47:54 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) Other factors which I
failed to mention in my prior answer would be the human relations involved in situation b.
You would have to deal with the user of your product on an in-person basis. In situation a
you would not have this human relation to deal with. Also, most people would be looking
out for themselves. They would do whatever they could to better themselves. If that meant
cutting costs in example a or trying to get as much from the other party in example b.
Hans: Ok.
Next Message by Cmanson is [705].
Question 139 is 116 in 1995ut, 156 in 1997WI, 163 in 1997sp, 165 in 1998WI, 172 in
1999SP, 243 in 2004fa, 263 in 2007fa, and 269 in 2008SP:
Question 139 Give everyday examples of “material relations of persons” and “social relations
of things.”
[398] Ranger: In our society there are some interesting examples of “social relations of
things.” Most European import cars (BMW, Mercedez, Jaguar) are associated with recognition,
prestige, and wealth. A front row ticket at a Utah Jazz game is also associated with
wealth and prestige. Nike shoes are associated with the ability to run fast, jump high, or to
be a great basketball player.
“Material relations of persons” also abound in our society. One example is that my friend
has a Super Nintendo, he is only my friend and I go to his house only because of his Super
Nintendo, otherwise I would disassociate myself with the person. My neighbor has access
to the internet, while I do not. The only time I associate with my neighbor is when I need
to access the internet. Because my neighbor has this commodity and I do not I befriend and
socialize with him, otherwise I would never want to associate with him.
Hans: Good examples.
Message [398] referenced by [528]. Next Message by Ranger is [399].
[425] Civic: Material relations of persons is often illustrated by the common phrase “Fair
weather friends”. For example I have a brother that is a car mechanic. I also have a cousin
that in general is a jerk. My cousin is rude to our family and ignores most of our relatives.
For some reason he thinks he is mightier than us all, except when his car breaks down. He
never converses with my brother in ordinary conversation, but he is quite nice when he needs
mechanical help. My brother comments that it is obvious he needs car help when he calls
because he never calls for any other reason. He can be quite nice when he needs to be and
always expects my brother to work on his car for free. What a jerk, needless to say my
brother has stopped working on his cars because of this relationship. Social relations of
things is seen everyday. Just travel to your local high school and see what fads the students
are wearing. For some reason the social relationship of certain commodities commands
extra prestige due to the nature of social relationships. I think advertising plays a large part
in this role. Take Nike shoes for example. Because of brand recognition and sports player
endorsements, Nike has grown into a household name. I feel when a buy those expensive
Nike shoes like I will be able to jump like Michael Jordan or run like Bo Jackson. There is
188 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
an additionally selling point other than just price or “usefulness”, possibly because I wear
Nike shoes I will be seen as in the “in crowd”. By the way, I still buy them anyway.
Hans: Good examples!
Next Message by Civic is [426].
[492] Sammy: An example of material relationship between people I can think of is the
relationship I developed with a person who wanted to buy a car I had. This person cared
little about me, except for the fact that I owned a a car he wanted to own. Likewise, my
main concern was that he wanted to purchase a car that I had no further use for. Once the
transaction had taken place our relationship was, for the most part, over. My brother-inlaw
pointed out a few good examples of social relationships between objects to me. We
happened to see two items, a bicycle rack, and a medical instrument. It never even crossed
my mind that these two things could be related, but he had a far different view. His machine
shop built those same objects, that performed very different tasks, using almost the very
same methods. Clearly these items shared a production method relationship. Although their
similarities ended once they left the plant, they did have much in common.
Hans: I would call this a technological relation between the things. The fact that two things are involved does not
make their relationship social.
Next Message by Sammy is [627].
[528] Makarios: An example of “material relations of people” would be my roommates.
The first one is self centered and selfish, and never bothers to take other people into consideration
before acting. He won’t think twice about invading your privacy to use something
that belongs to you, yet goes into a fit of rage should someone be so arrogant as to go into
his room to get something without asking, even if that something was purchased by someone
else. The other one, however, shares freely of all but her most personal belonging, and
merely asks that you return the item when you are finished with it. An example of the “social
relations of things” would be the automobile market. Two different makes of automobiles
may be almost identical in performance, style, and options, but due to social factors, such as
status, one car is socially more desirable than the other. For example, a Mercedes vs. a Ford
Taurus. Whether the actual quality of the Mercedes may or may not be superior to that of
the Ford, society has placed a greater value on the Mercedes, and it has, likewise, become a
status symbol.
Hans: Your first example is very interesting and has also implications for Questions 173 and 175. If anyone in
class wants to comment on this, I would be grateful. The second example is similar to an example given in [398],
but you are making it more palpable by comparing an import car with an equivalent domestic model, which is a
novel contribution.
Next Message by Makarios is [529].
[691] Tuan: Material relation of person is happend in my basis life. For ex: My friend
always have new game or new software every mos because his dad work for computer software
but he is very rude. Whenver I need to borrow his software to use, I call him to go
movies for exchange. Social relation of things is also everywhere. For ex: My friend has
Honda Prelude which is considered the popular and value car because people and society
said so. But I have American car, Ford, that is not consider as much as popular and value
because some people and society think it is no good and stylish.
Hans: These examples are already in the archive. If you do a question like this as a latecomer you should try to
add something new. There are many questions which have not been answered at all or not been answered correctly
or completely.

Next Message by Tuan is [778].
U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 189
Question 141 is 118 in 1995ut, 151 in 1996sp, 158 in 1997WI, 167 in 1998WI, 174 in
1999SP, and 195 in 2001fa:
Question 141 What does it matter whether exploitation follows from alienation, or alienation
follows from exploitation?
[428] Sinbad: It probably doesn’t matter which is the cause or consequence because
the end result is still the same. When I look at it I see it begins with the producer not
understanding the worth in his product which results from the labor time expended, instead
he bases the worth of his product on what the market will give to him. This alienation of the
labor process results in labor or skills put forth to produce a commodity directed towards the
producers own rewards and not how to best work with each other and to meet the various
human needs. On the other hand, if you believe humans are basically selfish then the process
begins with the exploitation or gaining advantage at the expense of another and rather than
working together the labor process turns toward the individual. Either way there is a break
down in the labor process.
Hans: But these two scenarios would suggest two quite different strategies if one were to attempt to change it. (By
the way, I think your two nutshell characterizations are very accurate and very much to the point.)
Next Message by Sinbad is [429].
[467] Oregon: Alienation from a commodity comes from the selling of labor to a owner
of production whose only social realationship comes into being only in the work force. A
commodity that is produced to be sold to another being alienates the laborer in the production
process. The worker is alienated from the commodity because the use of the commodity is
not in the laborers agenda. The end to the product is seen as being consumed by a 2nd
party. The process of value to the laborer is alienated from the worker. Exploitation derives
from the area of the laborer and the owners social relationship. The workers price of labor
is exploited in the fact that he does not receive the finished product and he produces many
on the same commodities to be valued by another being . If the worker works for 8 hours
and recieves 2 dollars an hour. If the product that he produces can be sold at 4 dollars a
piece then if he doesn’t want to be exploited he would stop after producing 4 items in eight
hours. If he produces 8 items and the price is 4 dollars then the workers is exploited for
16 dollars or 4 hours. The money is then gained by the owner who did nothing. I think it
this discussion that alienation comes before exploitation because the worker is not exploited
until he produces more than the value of his labor.
Hans: This is not only right if you look at the course of the workday, but also logically: you cannot have capitalism
(i.e. exploitation) without commodity production (i.e. alienation), but you can have commodity production without
capitalism. From this angle, alienation seems the more basic concept.
Next Message by Oregon is [664].
Question 142 is 119 in 1995ut, 152 in 1996sp, 159 in 1997WI, 166 in 1997sp, and 159 in
1997ut:
Question 142 Describe cooperative situations in which the participants do not use each
other and serve each other as means to obtain their individual goals.
[399] Ranger: The most evident situation in which members of a cooperative situation
do not use each other to obtain their individual goals is within a family unit. A family on
190 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
a farm must work together in order to make the farm operate effectively. This requires that
the members of the family work cooperatively and work for the good of the family unit.
Individual success from the farm would be difficult because the farm would probably fail if
the members of a family worked on the farm only to achieve their individual goals. Another
example of a cooperative situation involves the Utah Jazz basketball team. The members
of the team must work together cooperatively for the good of the team. Karl Malone gets a
rebound so that the team can take the ball down the court and score. John Stockton makes
a pass to a teammate because the teammate may have a better chance of scoring. Stockton
doesn’t pass the ball because he wants another assist, he passes the ball because it improves
the team’s chance of winning the game.
Hans: Good examples.
Next Message by Ranger is [530].
[417] Dubbel: The first situation that comes to mind would be that of a team. A football
team like the 49ers. The team members are in cooperation with one another in winning the
Superbowl. There are many individuals working on that goal as well as personal achievements
being made by others. Steve Young makes a pass to an open receiver to improve the
team’s advantage on the field or score a touchdown. This also gives Young a another completion
on his record, but on the other hand, Jerry Rice may have received the ball making
the completion or touchdown possible. He also has influenced the team’s efforts and his
own. As a team they rely on each other in achieving goals. Another example may be that
of a construction crew. The Foreman and workers cooperate in completing a scheduled job.
The foreman will setup the job and organize the workers in completing the job. However, the
workers are needed to accomplish this. Without the workers and the foreman it is difficult
to complete the job in the alloted time. The crew has the goal of completing the job on time.
Individually the foreman receives bonuses or good merits and the workers also may earn the
same. Without the workers and the forman the company would not be able to get work and
complete jobs.
Hans: But in the relationship between foreman and his workers there is already an element of control und using
others. The capitalist puts pressure on the foreman which he has to pass on to the workers. A capitalist work place
is not just production. It is, importantly, also a site of exploitation. This is what Marx will discuss in Chapter Seven
(not discussed in this class).
Next Message by Dubbel is [418].
[429] Sinbad: During a time of crisis, such as WWII, I believe people worked together
for a common goal and not personal goals. People worked and sacrificed for their country.
Everyone had a part where their skills were used. The young men left their homes to fight
in combat, their wives filled positions where men could not (ie, manufacturing of ammo and
artillery), physcians and nurses tended to those wounded. It was an awful experience but
it put all selfishness away for a while and the citizens of the country worked together for a
common goal.
Hans: Good example.
Next Message by Sinbad is [537].
[705] Cmanson: I think a good example of this would be a real estate agent and a loan
processor. It is in the best interest of the loan processor for the broker to do his job, selling
homes. This creates work for the loan processor. It is also in the best interest of the broker
for the loan processor to do his job, acquiring funding for the people who are buying the
houses, this allows the broker to complete his job.

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 191
Hans: Very interesting example! This situation is not like that where many workers work for the same foreman,
where they are forced to cooperate but they are not really interested in the outcome. In the situation you describe,
the incentive structure is such that both are genuinely interested in the other’s success, yet they cannot try to freeride
on the other’s labor. Are there potential conflicts if they get different amounts of pay for equivalent labor
inputs?
(datestring)Wed, 1 Mar 1995 21:57:23 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) I suppose there could
be a conflict in the speed or timing of the jobs each laborer was preforming. Although in the
final analysis it is still in the best interest of both laborers to preform their tasks to the best
of their ability in order for all parties to be paid.
Hans: What do you mean by “conflict in the speed or timing”?
(datestring)Sun, 12 Mar 1995 21:33:06 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) What I mean by conflict
in speed or timing of performance is that if one of the two workers was to be receiving a much
larger check for the transaction he would be more likely to expedite his part of the process.
Although it is in the best interest of both parties to get this deal done the one who is not
making a lot of money could do his part a bit slower than the other who may have a much
larger check riding on the completion of this deal getting done.
Hans: Ok.
Next Message by Cmanson is [706].
Question 146 Why will, according to Marx, man always have to “wrestle” with nature, i.e.,
why will the “necessary labor” (here in the sense: labor necessary for subsistence) never
be reduced to a negligible amount?
[393] Ann: First we need to remember that without labor of any form we would not be
able to exist. Even in the beginnings, in the hunter gatherer society, it took labor to create
the tools to cut plants and animals for food. In our society today we assume people our
interested in maximizing their utility. Utility in this sense meaning happiness. Also when
looking at industries we assume that firms are maximizing profits. So as a whole we assume
that people search for the greatest return on their efforts whether that be monetary or of
another nature. We can also assume that people are maximizing their utility in part due to
necessity. It is necessary to work so you can house and feed yourself. As a result of all this,
we can now see why labor that is necessary for subsistence can never be reduced. People are
interested in maximizing their utility, and work is a necessary component of doing so.
Hans: You argued why there will always be work. But the Marx quote from Capital III seemed to say more than
that: Marx also claims, if I read him right, that this amount of work is never going to be very short. In the debates
about socialism one hears sometimes that the issue how to divide the necessary labor will become moot as time
goes on because the necessary labor will become quite short, one or two hours a day. Marx seems to have come to a
different conclusion. In terms of your utility functions, Marx postulates the the preference for leisure over income
will never be such that people will opt for 23 hours a day leisure time.
By the way, I hope you are aware that the argument in your answer that profit maximization is a consequence
of utility maximization, i.e., of the general quest for happiness, is “methodological individualism.”
Next Message by Ann is [553].
[460] Allison: The reason it will never be reduced to a negligible amount is because it is
determined by need and external necessities, and as man develops...this realm of necessity
gets larger as man wants more of the different things around him. I think the word wrestle is
extremely well put because as these necessities expand they almost begin to control the man
192 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
and he must wrestle with nature in order to get what he wants, almost contrary to his human
nature.
Hans: You always discover interesting new perspectives.
Next Message by Allison is [551].
Question 148 Marx criticizes that even after the discovery that labor was the substance
of value, this was generally considered an “immutable fact.” What else should have been
done?
[361] Johny: He should have taken into consideration the fact that without nature there
could be no labor. Labor is dependant on nature. The example Marx uses about changing
wood into a chair makes this point obvious. Without nature there would be no wood and we
could not make a chair if there was no wood. Therefore labor is not the only substance of
value.
Hans: Right on! Here is a serious theoretical argument trying to expose the absurdity of the labor theory of value.
Any one willing to second it? Anyone willing to oppose it?
Next Message by Johny is [470].
[418] Dubbel: Marx says that labor is the substance of value. However, isn’t labor dependent
on resources? For example last week we talked that the use-value of the linen is found
in the coat. This is done through the labor to produce the coat. But if their is no linen then
their is no need for the labor to produce the coat. I think the other side of the spectrum is
ignored. This is also seen by the piece of wood that is produced into the table. The labor
depends on some natural resources in givinr this substance of value.
Hans: Your implied answer to the question “what else should have been done?” was: abandon the labor theory
of value. Of course, Marx would not have agreed with this, but I appreciate your criticisms of the labor theory
of value. They are based on some misunderstandings, but don’t feel bad about this, everyone has those. Marx’s
Capital is a very difficult text. Your contribution is earning you a good grade because you are noticing that in your
interpretation the Marxian theory does not make any sense.
(1) Instead of saying “value comes from labor” (which is vulnerable to your objection: labor cannot function
alone, therefore what about the materials and means of production?), Marx says: value comes from abstract labor,
i.e., from the use of the limited resource “human labor power.” Value exactly comes from the fact that this labor
power which was used to produce the coat could also have been used otherwise. Therefore your objection no longer
holds.
(2) The use value of the linen is not found in the coat. This was a big misunderstanding which is pervasive in
many of the submissions in the archive. The value of the linen (i.e., the labor time which went into the linen) is
represented by the coat, basically because the linen weaver, who put all his labor into the linen, is willing to trade
the linen for the coat.
Next Message by Dubbel is [549].
Question 150 is 127 in 1995ut, 161 in 1996sp, 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
in 2008fa, 303 in 2011fa, and 317 in 2012fa:
Question 150 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?
[423] Eagle: No, I don’t agree. We must price our commodities by their labor content.
We have to be able to make some profit off of the commodity in order to survive. If the
commodity is priced according to it’s cost of materials alone, the producer will only break
even.

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 193
Hans: The alternative I had in mind when asking this question was not that the labor cost should not be reflected
in the price of the product at all, but that that one decides freely what one wants to charge for the product, not by
labor content, but by the usefulness of the product or whatever criteria one may come up with.
Next Message by Eagle is [574].
[449] Scarlett: I disagree with the statement. Although the person claims to have the
freedom to set his or her own prices, for their commodities, this “someone” ignores the
concept that it is necessary for someone else to be willing to buy at that price. I think that
Marx’s argument is that people tend to base the exchange relationship on the labor time that
is invested in the commodity that they produce with the labor time necessary to produce the
commodity that they wish to trade for. Although he or she is correct in his or her freedom to
price the commodity according to any principle, this person does not take into account that
they must trade for something else with someone else who also has that freedom.
Hans: Good point.
Next Message by Scarlett is [453].
[490] Sammy: At first glance I felt this statement was very naive, but thinking about it
more led me to feel just the opposite. I can think of far too many examples where prices are
set by methods other than labor quantity. take pogs for example. These little discs probably
cost only a fraction of a cent to produce, and yet people pay much more than this. did it
take some great effort to come up with the idea? No, just watching kids use bottle caps was
all that was done. So why would people pay so much? I guess there are a lot of irrational
people out there. This statement is very true.
Hans: Maybe then the next question would be: why doesn’t everyone produce and sell pogs?
Next Message by Sammy is [492].
[529] Makarios: No, I don’t agree. While we are free people, as in the Robinson example,
we all have needs that must be fulfilled for survival. Even Crusoe himself had to divide his
time between different forms of the same labor, devoting more time to harder, more time
consuming activities than easy ones. That, in essence is the same as pricing commodities
because Crusoe had to weigh the opportunity costs for each and every activity. Likewise,
in society, the costs of aquiring the most basic necessities take on a socially placed value of
labor time that can be devoted elsewhere.
Hans: You sound as if the exchange of the products at their values was the only possible way to allocate social
labor time. Or maybe I should formulate it as follows: true, what you consider the “essence” remains the same in
all societies, but the devil lies (not in the details but) in the social form.
Next Message by Makarios is [587].
[760] Marinda: People are forced to price commodities in relation to quantity of labor by
the forces of the market. I only have so many hours in the day, and I must charge enough for
my time that I can live. But if I take twice as long to make a coat as the competing tailors, I
would have to charge twice as much per coat in order to make the same wage as they do. If
the coats are all the same, nobody will buy mine. But to live on making coats that are just as
cheap as others, I must make them faster, just as fast as others. The market forces result in
my prices being similar to others’ as well as the labor content of each coat being similar to
others’.
Hans: Very good.
Next Message by Marinda is [861].
194 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
Question 151 is 128 in 1995ut, 163 in 1996sp, 169 in 1997ut, 223 in 2002fa, 261 in
2004fa, 276 in 2007SP, and 305 in 2011fa:
Question 151 Why can empiricism, the starting with and clinging to facts, only come to
conclusions which affirm existing social relations?
[218] Darci: Empiricism must bring the scientist to the conclusions which affirm existing
social relations because the data that can be collected already have the bias of society’s
values locked into them. We are dealing with a capitalistic society when we look at economics
in the United States. The social values are already immersed in the market. Labor
and exchange values have already been assigned to commodities, and if one looks at the
exchange value and magnitudes, he must look at them through distorted eyes. Money (the
mystical element) is the mode of exchange value and as such, U.S. social values are inseparable
from the exchange value. Therefore, one cannot view a commodity without being
biased in the study. Adam Smith’s analyses of the invisible hand and government policies
infect the data and therefore it must support traditional economic beliefs because this is what
today’s economists have proven for the U.S. economy.
Hans: Very eloquent. I love it.
Message [218] referenced by [2007SP:239]. Next Message by Darci is [396].
[365] Vida: If one has started an investigation and is clinging to a set of facts then it
becomes no suprise that the conclusion of the investigation affirms existing social relations.
In their mind throughout the organization are these set of facts any deviation from these
facts may work to deny their sensibility. Evidence that may fly in the face of the set facts
will either be ignored or will be interpreted in such a way that it furthers the preconceived
notions. Just as if I enter the reading of Marx with a negative attitude geared towards bashing
I will only result in bashing. I will read with a negative mindframe. My reading is no longer
objective it is weighted. I will read with a negative mindframe and will read every line with
skepticism. However if I read or investigate without any influence I will read accordingly.
The value of this outcome is much more objective and much more accurate. Actually this
discussion has brought up another issue. Is it not true that most things are done in this rather
weighted manner? The experiences and observations that have made up one’s life are hard to
put aside when conducting an investigation. My conclusion is relative to my experiences and
observations in everyday life. This can be exemplified in the fact that two people can study
the same theory yet get very different interpretations. In Germany in early 20th century,
Spartakus and the Social Democrats were in direct opposition yet they were both leftists
and based in Marxist theory. This situation of different conclusions becomes an example
of investigating with a set of facts that has weighted the mind. Each read Marx differently
because each associated with his theories in different ways, each side had different reference
points and each had different experiences and observations. The different interpretations,
just as with anything, were and are inevitable. Observing with a weighted mind has become
a fixation in everyday society. How else can one explain the different interpretations of the
same material.
Hans: I realize, reading this, that my nutshell characterization of empiricism is in need of reformulation. Those
who answer this question later might want to make the concept of “empiricism” more precise.
I did not mean, as you understood it, that it is wrong to start from and cling to a certain set of facts and not to
acknowledge contrary evidence. I meant this question in a much more provocative way: if one starts from facts in

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 195
general and “clings” to them, i.e., does not go beneath them, stays on the surface, then one will and up with theories
which affirm the existing order.
Two things strike me about your answer. (1) you are taking it for granted that the existing social order is
the beneficiary of false theories. I whole-heartedly agree because I think the existing social order is a bad and
oppressive one and because I also think that at this juncture in history correct science (especially correct social
science) is emancipatory.
(2) You seem to greatly underestimate how difficult it is to produce correct science. You basically are saying:
if people would just get away from their preconceived notions, then their thinking should end up with the same
results. There is much more involved in this, and the errors one may commit are especially insiduous because
things may be wrong which look immensely plausible. Like methodological individualism, or the above “clinging
to the facts.” One goal of this class is to make you aware of the possibility that our common sense notions may be
fraught with serious basic errors – they may be part of our chains.
Next Message by Vida is [498].
[453] Scarlett: The reason for this would have to stem from the definition of empiricism.
When doing an empirical study, the researcher bases his conclusion solely on what has
happened in the past. By assuming that all situations will be like those that have been
experienced already, the only conclusion possible is that existing conditions will continue.
In order to change the existing social relations, it would be necessary to begin with a different
situation than the present facts present.
Hans: Excellent! You came up with a surprisingly simple, but very striking critique of empiricism.
Next Message by Scarlett is [532].
Question 156 is 133 in 1995ut:
Question 156 Why should primitive fisherman and hunter not exchange their products?
[471] Johny: Why should primitive fisherman and hunter not exchange their products?
The primitive fisherman and primitive hunter exchange their commodity according to the
labour time put into each activity. Marx states “On this occasion he slips into the anachronism
of allowing the primitive fisherman and hunter to value their implements in accordance
with the annuity tables used on the London Stock exchange in 1817”. He also believes the
exchange itself is an anachronism.
Hans: Of course, they did not have stock exchanges back then. But what prevented them from making trades with
each other?
(datestring)Wed, 1 Mar 1995 15:12:41 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) The primitive fisherman
and hunter did not exchange with each other because they didn’t know the value. Moreover,
they both thought that their product was more valuable, so they could not come to an agreement.
Reply from Johny.
Hans: No, that is not it.
Next Message by Johny is [473].
Question 157 is 134 in 1995ut, 167 in 1996sp, 227 in 2002fa, 235 in 2003fa, 260 in
2005fa, 280 in 2007SP, 285 in 2007fa, 290 in 2008SP, 302 in 2009fa, 330 in 2010fa, and
309 in 2011fa:
Question 157 Why does Marx call Ricardo’s exchange between primitive fisherman and
primitive hunter a “Robinson Crusoe story”?
[427] Sinbad: Like Robinson, the primitive fisherman and hunter have needs to satisfy
and therefore must perform various labors to produce. However, unlike Robinson, the human
196 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
labor used to produce the functions or commodities are divided among groups. Some are
compelled (or maybe assigned) to spend their time developing precision in hunting, while
others must develop their expertise in fishing. These skills are improved over time and most
likely passed on to new generations of hunters and fishermen. It is through these experiences
that the different operations and labor time required to produce are determined. For example,
hunters may learn that the best time to hunt deer is early morning when the deer come down
from the hills to drink water from the stream. In order to make the exchange of game for fish,
the hunters and fishermen develop a sense of the exchange value (the different operations
to produce and labor-time required) in their commodities. This is similar to Robinson’s
determination of the cost to him to perform each function.
Hans: You missed it.
Next Message by Sinbad is [428].
[473] Johny: In the “Robinson Crusoe story”, Crusoe performs all labour by himself. He
also records the amount of labour time it takes to perform a certain project. He does not take
into account the time that is necessary to produce the product, because he is in his society
all by himself. This is very much like the examples of the primitive fisherman and hunter.
They base the exchange value on how much labour time it takes to catch a fish or hunt for
game. This is the reason for Marx pointing out that the two are similar.
Hans: You gave it a try, but you missed it.
Next Message by Johny is [617].
Question 164 is 141 in 1995ut, 174 in 1996sp, 183 in 1997WI, 182 in 1997ut, 235 in
2002fa, 244 in 2003fa, 274 in 2004fa, 269 in 2005fa, 289 in 2007SP, 299 in 2008SP, 297
in 2008fa, 311 in 2009fa, 339 in 2010fa, 318 in 2011fa, and 332 in 2012fa:
Question 164 Is there a connection between Christianity and the commodity relation?
[653] Tsunami: The connection between Christianity and the commodity relation is one
of fetishism. Just as commodity relations {2} are veiled by fetishism, Christianity operates
through the mystification of human substance by abstracting it into the ephemeral human
soul. Furthermore, both Christiainity and the commodity relation require an a-priori, blindfaith
devotion to the “self-evident facts.” Given the relations between current socio-economic
conditionas at the time, the rise of Christianity that led to the Medieval Ages and achieved its
greatest glory with Mercantilism and colonialism would appear to have in fact benefited from
commodity fetishism and even fed into the solidification of relations between commodities.
Both serve as objectified forms of homogeneous human labor (as with commodities and their
values) and as the form of religion (as with Christianity) in order to give these form.
Hans: You seem to make quite sweeping statements here. I cannot quite follow, but you seem to attribute an
important causative influence to religion. If my reading is right, then this differs from historical materialism which
considers religion to be a superstructural phenomenon.
Next Message by Tsunami is [763].
Question 168 is 203 in 1999SP and 214 in 2000fa:
Question 168 Marx implies that Ricardo should not have agreed with the following passage
by Destutt the Tracy: ‘As it is certain that our physical and moral faculties are alone our
original riches, the employment of those faculties, labor of some kind, is our original treasure,
and it is always from this employment that all those things are created which we call

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 197
riches ... It is certain, too, that all those things only represent the labor which has created
them, and if they have a value, or even two distinct values (use value and exchange value),
they can only derive them from that’ (the value) ‘of the labor from which they emanate’ Are
there any errors in this passage? What are they?
[706] Cmanson: Yes. The error lies in the fact he says “our physical and mental faculities
are our ONLY riches.” then he says “it is always from this employment that all thoes are
created which we call riches.” One can’t have something be one’s only riches and then have
something else also be one’s riches.
Hans: He says: “our physical and moral faculties are alone our ORIGINAL riches”, i.e., he distinguishes between
original riches and riches.
Next Message by Cmanson is [708].
Question 172 is 149 in 1995ut, 194 in 1997WI, 201 in 1997sp, 193 in 1997ut, 202 in
1998WI, 312 in 2008fa, 326 in 2009fa, 354 in 2010fa, and 333 in 2011fa:
Question 172 Why a separate Chapter about the exchange process? Has it not already
been treated in Chapter One?
[498] Vida: In order to understand why Marx includes a separate chapter about the exchange
process one must understand the difference between social {1} and social {2} . Chapter
1 one Marx elaborates on the exchange value of a commodity and defines the parameters
that the commodities exist in and the describes the complex web of relationships that they
are thrust into. He does this all through the social {1} level. Chapter 2 on the exchange
process becomes necessary because it describes the interactions within the network of relationships
characterized in Chapter 1. Chapter 2 is given in the social {2} context. When
one understands the difference between the social {1} and social {2} level it becomes apparent
that although Marx includes a separate chapter for something that we seem to have already
discussed in Chapter 1, in actuality we are talking about two entirely different contexts.
The exchange value described in Chapter 1 is referring to a social {1} context that defines
the structure the commodity exists in, while Chapter 2 refers to the social {2} context that
decribes its intrapersonal interactions within the given structure.
Hans: Very good. (By the way, I know of no other commentary of Capital which explicitly lays out the discinction
between social {1} and social {2} – a distinction which I have from Bhaskar.)
Next Message by Vida is [499].
[540] Civic: The exchange process was already covered in chapter 1 but in light of a different
context. Chapter 1 covered exchange value in the context of the social structures, while
Chapter 2 covers individual activity in light of the structures outlined previously. Chapter 2
takes a more micro view as to the exchange relation and different influences in this context.
Chapter 2 also talks about private owners and their pursuit of individual objectives in light
of the social structure. It is important to have both chapters because they illustrate different
viewpoints of the relationship and how they affect each other. A similar example from
Economics is the distinction of Micro vs. Macro Economics. Both forms are necessary to
understand the others in light of different contexts. I liked the example in the annotations of
animals in symbiosis and how this is related to the societal vs. individual level.
198 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
Hans: Yes. The awareness that there are two levels of social relations is, I think, one of the most important lessons
one can learn in this class. (Actually there are three, because unconscious human motives also play an important
role)
Next Message by Civic is [541].
[553] Ann: Chapter one deals with the interactions of social structures in the exchange
process. The context is very macro related. It is important now that we dive into a more
in-depth look on how individuals are relating in this social structure. That is where chapter
two comes in. We are now going to look on a more micro level in the exchange process and
deal with the interactions among individuals.
Hans: Yes. BTW, I very much liked your posting to the class about methodological individualism.
Next Message by Ann is [554].
[590] Translat: Chapter One laid the ground work for Marx to explain his views on value,
use-value, magnitude, etc. It was an introduction to his expanding later on his theory. Much
like a building is built, this was the first layer, the foundation. Chapter Two is design to show
the problem of individualism and society. In capitalism the individual wants and desires are
the most important. It also appears to me that Marx was working more with the material
items themselves, the actual wood, gold, etc. Chapter Two is based more on exchange of
items.
Hans: Vague and wrong.
(datestring)Wed, 15 Feb 1995 16:20:21 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) I try again. Chapter
one is about value and the relationship between commodities. Chapter Two talks about
how commodities influence society and how they control society rather than the other way
around.
Hans: When you wrote: “Chapter Two is designed to show the problem of individualism and society” you were
almost right: Marx did not talk about individualism but about the individual and society. The best framework to
explain this is level {1} and level {2} . Chapter One was on level {1} , describing the web of exchange relations among
commodities and between commodities and money. Chapter Two shows how goal-directed individual agents fit
themselves into this framework.
Next Message by Translat is [591].
[601] Vansmack: Chapter One did talk about exchanges quite a bit but the way exchange
was examined in chapter one is actually different than the way it is examined in chapter 2.
Chapter One examines exchange when it is closely related with the values that go alongside
it, Chapter two on the other hand talks about the pure exchange of items. Chapter 2 goes into
why things such as private goals can come into contradiction with social necessities. The
actual relation is the exchange process. Marx foreshadows this in his transition from chapter
one into chapter 2.
Hans: It seems to me that you just collected bits and pieces from the Annotations but I do not see what you are
aiming at.
Next Message by Vansmack is [603].
[664] Oregon: The reason for the extra chapter for Marx was to introduce the universal
equivalent for all commodities. The equivalent for all commmodities that could be exchanged
for one commodity and then used again for another commodity. The universal form
of money. In chapter one Marx noted the relations of commodities in exchanging them for
one another. In chapter two he introduces the relations of money to commodities. This chapter
brings the “individual acctivity in the light of the social structures that are discussed in
chapter one.”

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 199
Hans: The Universal equivalent and all the relations between the commodities which go beyond the one-on-one
rexchagneability were introduced in Section 3 of Chapter One.
(datestring)Fri, 10 Feb 1995 14:40:34 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) The word money however
was not introduced in section 3. The concept of money and where it derives its value is
not described. The universal equivalent is, but money is not...eg..20 yards of linen = 1 coat.
Hans: Look at the passage starting with 162:3. It was the stated purpose of this section to derive money, see 139:1
I also asked about your original submission:
How is your last sentence connected with the rest of your answer?
(datestring)Fri, 10 Feb 1995 14:40:34 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) The last sentence describes
how the market place is sort of set up. The individuals quest for the the universal
equvalent of his commodity that he is selling. The social structure is the marketplace that
prevails. The social interaction between the buyer and the seller was brought up in chapter
1 however the money aspect is again not mentioned. The universal equivalent is thus
defined......
Hans: What you are writing does not make sense.
Next Message by Oregon is [665].
[927] Yoda: Basically chapter one talks about social structures in the exchange process
of a commodity and defines the parameters in which commodities exist and describes their
relationships. This chapter relates to a macro economy. Chapter two relates to a micro
economy exchange process. The chapter two exchange process describes the interactions in
the network of relationships that are talked about in chapter one. Even though the two subjects
seem very similar, they are actually two separate ideas. The exchange value described
in chapter one refers to a social context that defines the structure the commodity exists in
while chapter two refers to the social context that describes the interactions within a given
structure.
Hans: Why do you say “refers to the social context”? Chapter two describes how individuals act in this structure.
Next Message by Yoda is [929].
Question 173 is 150 in 1995ut, 183 in 1996sp, 196 in 1997WI, 203 in 1997sp, 295 in
2004fa, 318 in 2008SP, 316 in 2008fa, 358 in 2010fa, 337 in 2011fa, and 352 in 2012fa:
Question 173 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?
[539] Sinbad: When something belongs to a person it is up to them to decide what
happens to it. It can be sold, used, borrowed, or just sit there doing nothing. Whatever
the owner of the property desires for that object will be its fate. This can be taken literally
and have an adverse outcome. In the case of a pet owner or parent, the owners’ will may
result in a negative will. To take away the rights of a living being crosses over limits in our
society. Many groups have been developed and laws formed to protect the rights of such
individuals, for instance, animal activist groups, child protection and battered spouse laws,
and anti-abortion/right to life groups. I believe private property can be a good thing. It is a
matter of knowing the limits of what you are allowed to do with your private property. You
must have respect and desire the best will for your property as well as for yourself.
200 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
Hans: Excellent answer.
Next Message by Sinbad is [717].
[578] Alex: When an individual has exclusive possession of something, they also have the
right, or perhaps duty, to decide what to do with it. This may be to use it, to sell it, to rent it
out, or by default do nothing with it. The key concept here is that whatever the owner wishes
to do with his private property will ultimately be its fate. This is a good thing, as long as one
realizes that there are limits as to what one can do with whatever one owns. If you consider
children to be property, there are obviously limits as to what you can do with your property.
The will that one wishes for one’s property must not infringe on the rights of others. This is
where we derive the limits (in the form of laws) as to what one can do with one’s property.
Hans: I’d like you to question this more, go beyond the surface. Instead of just saying, this is how people do it,
and if there are abuses then we need laws, ask whether that which people do makes sense and what can of worms
is necessarily hidden in it.
(datestring)Wed, 15 Mar 1995 22:18:19 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) can of worms The issue
of property rights does in fact open up a huge can of worms, as you suggested. The can
of worms that is oppened is idea that how can we possibly distinguish where one persons
rights end and another persons rights begin. In some cases this rather simple, consider a murderer,
obviously this is an infringement on the dead parties rights. On the other hand there
are cases that are quite nearly impossible to distinguish property rights between individuals.
The coase theorem regarding externalities attempts to say that no matter the assignment of
property rights, the efficient solution will be achieved. However, the coase theorem does not
necessarily state that a “fair” or “equitable” solution will be reached. So yes the issue of
property rights does open up a huge can of worms.
Hans: Interesting thoughts.
Message [578] referenced by [581]. Next Message by Alex is [579].
[581] Sprewell: When one owns private property one must make the decision as to what
they will do with that property. Whether they sell, trade, or do nothing with it they are
manifesting their will, which determines the fate of that property. Private property is a good
thing but certain limits must exist. These limits protect the rights of others and their property.
In the examples given in the annotations, children and pets are considered property. In these
cases laws are imposed, such as child abuse laws and laws to prevent the mistreatment of
animals, in order to insure that one person’s will doesn’t infringe upon the rights or will of
others.
Hans: See [578]
Next Message by Sprewell is [582].
[591] Translat: The owners’ will comes from the fact that the owner has dominion over
property. Therefore, only his, the owner, wants and desires matter. If you own a car and park
it in student parking with an “A” permit; it was your will to put it there even though you
probably will get a ticket. (Ha, ha) The car had no will and the person issuing the ticket did
not have the “will” not to park it there. I believe when it comes to inanimate objects, it is not
necessary a bad thing, however, when we speak of humans or animals there is another realm
that needs to be explored. There are limits as you said on cruelty to animals, but history
has shown that explotation of humans has at times been not only conducted, but condoned.
There comes a point where ownership or will needs to be address in the benefit to the object
(person) and the rights of the commodity.

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 201
Hans: I would distinguish between ownership and will. Will is a good thing, unless derailed or abducted by private
property relations.
(datestring)Wed, 15 Feb 1995 16:22:23 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) An inanimate object
has no will except that of the “owner”. However, from the last discussion in class, is it safe
to say that private property relations are a social not a private issue?
Hans: I was not concerned about the will of the property but the will of the owner. And yes, I definitely think that
privater property relations are a social issue.
Next Message by Translat is [592].
[597] Titania: The commodity owner’s will “resides” in the ojects which are his property
in two ways. First, the will resides in the objects because the owner is being governed by
his love of these objects. He is able to enjoy the commodity up until the point where he
feels secure with its saftey. After he feels that his goods are in danger (of being stolen or
something), the good takes control him the owner. His will is no longer his own. However,
I also see the will residing in the commodity another way. The will of the owner must be in
the good because he, in theory, put his own labor into it. By producing goods with which
he trades to obtain the wanted commodity, the producer is symbolically putting labor into
the good. It is a sort of transitive property.....if a=b and b=c, then a=c. For example, if the
producer makes a shoe and trades it for something of equilivant labor, a fork, they he has put
his will in to the fork by wanting it and woring toward it.
Hans: Good point. The relationship to the object is in a sense the relationship to his own labor. Very good answer.
(datestring)Wed, 8 Feb 1995 12:22:05 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) Is it a good thing; where
does it have its limits, where should it have its limits? Commodities incompassing the
owner’s wills are fine until they t a k e o v e r the owners’ wills. One can get so caught
up in his possessions, he cannot see that they are merely tools...a means as opposed to an
end. It has its limits in our society when we start to be ruled by our fears of not having
enough of the commodity or our fear of having it taken from us. It should have its limits
before these thoughts even have a chance to take root.
Hans: Very good. But this is not so much an issue of individual self-control as one of the social structure, the web
of relations the individual finds him- or herself in.
Next Message by Titania is [599].
[623] Stxian: Marx’s pharse about commodity owner’s will “resides” in the objects which
are his property is a quite deep thing to explain from my stand point, but the one thing
interesting about this question is that I never thought of my own will’s effect on myself and
other people, this is a very unique idea to evulate myself and see more clearly how other
people is judging you. Anyway, I think what Marx means here is for instance, if one of
my friends “borrowes” my ‘Nintendo’ system without asking for my permission, then he
automatically violated my will, according to Marx, my will not only include the control and
thinking of my body and mind, but also include my personal property or things belongs to
me or something with a strong link and connection to me. I can not answer if this is a good
thing or bad thing, but one thing is certain, that is we have to have some limitation on our
will of influences and property. Today’s modern society is in a situation that you can not
protect your personal privacy. This is espically true in America society, for example, I saw a
program on the talk show that a mother is been prosecuted and sentenced to jail for two years
for slaping her 8yrs old son in a supermarket, the cashier who worked in the supermarket
reported and called the police about the incident, on the TV, I saw the family been torn apart
202 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
and hurt deeply by this event, and the cashier who caused this is sitting happily on the stage
feeling that she did the right thing despite the victim’s husband, daughter and son’s cry and
hurt, is this really what we want in our society, instead of helping problem, outside people
are creating problems for that family. I might be wrong, but I think American parents can not
enforce their rights on discipline their own children in public without the harassment from
other people. I certainly do think there are cases of child abuse in some American homes, but
I think the majority of parents are good people and deserved to be understanded and realize
the reason behind the action of descipline the children. So, I think there are really no limits
to judge and influence people. People have to understand the modern society and neclear
family’s problem and be more considerate on the action you are going to take, because it
certainly is goint to have a big and huge impacts on other people.
Hans: I am exactly on the opposite pole with you on the issue of treatment of children. Child abuse is dramatically
on the rise in the United States. Life is becoming more and more stressful, and people often pass their frustrations
on to the weakest link, those dependent children with their unconditional love and willingness to accept everything
that comes from their inscrutable guardians. On the other hand it is becoming more and more widely known that it
is not necessary to discipline children. For the first time in history, a significant number of adults have been brought
up by understanding parents. They can tell child abuse when they see it; their perception has not been blinded by
the abuse they themselves were subject to. Read Alice Miller: The Banished Knowledge, it is on reserve for Econ
508 in the Marriott Library. (Alice Miller is not a Marxist).
But I agree with you about the importance of the issue of people’s will. I am in favor of putting the individual’s
will in the driver’s seat again, society should respect the individual’s will. Right now we have the illusion of this,
but not the reality. There is the promise out there that you can be all you can be, but the reality of it is that the
individuals’ energy to attain their own goals is systematically syphoned off and subjugated to the social “necsssity”
to accumulate capital. Along with the emancipation of the individual’s will must come an awareness of those social
conditions which de-rail and re-channel our wills.
Next Message by Stxian is [631].
[636] Tsunami: According to Marx, the commodity owner’s will resides in the objects
because the owner is affected by a violation upon their property by another’s will. The
objects themselves cannot act upon their own wishes and can offer no resistance. Action,
therefore, is solely dependent upon the will of that individual, or groups of individuals, who
are in possession of that object. Whether or not this is a good thing would depend upon
the extremity of the example. Sole proprietorship of an object and the imposition of one’s
will as owner was used, until quite recently, to keep domestic abuse obscured from the
public gaze under the guise of husband-as-patriarch and head of household. However, on
the other extreme, society has begun to claim supreme ownership over all objects, including
the husband’s wives and inclusive imposes its own will upon the abusive husband. This
frightening extreme of people always in other people’s business, dictating what people can or
can’t do in the privacy of their own home, or their own bodies recalls a chilling Big Brother
society that would pry into everything. This idea of what can be owned (appropriated)
by another and what intrinsically belongs to someone else, and especially the legal and
social importance prescribed to specific kinds of ownership is something I find fascinating.
Ownership is one of the “freedoms” most cherished and upheld by our constitution. Larceny
and grand theft auto carry longer and tougher sentences than rape, molestation and abuse–
inanimate objects are more socially important that other humans. There has been a recent
trend where a commodity owner’s will has been limited to include only inanimate ojects.
Children and spouses and employees are no longer subjected to the “owners” will (at least,
hypothetically). Ideally, ownership ought to be limited to commodities either produced or

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 203
earned by that person (which again gets tricky if you consider children as commodities
produced by parents).
Hans: Very deep. An excellent contribution to the discussion.
Next Message by Tsunami is [640].
[646] Ida: The commodity owner’s will resides in the objects which are his property
means if something which is his/her own, he/she will become very upset if something happens
to that commodity. If that commodity is stolen or vandalized that owner will be affected
personally because he/she owns it. The destruction or loss of that commodity may be devastating
for the owner because it may be that owners only source of “income”. For example,
let’s say a truckdriver has his/her truck stolen. That truck is the truckdrivers souce of income
and now it is gone, the truckdriver is without income. The truckdriver’s will resides
in that truck because it is very important to him/her and if it is gone it will affect him/her
in a devastating way. I don’t know if it’s good or bad, and for who? Even if the truck isn’t
this truckdriver’s only source of income, the truckdriver will be very angry if their truck is
stolen.
Hans: No wonder the truckdriver is getting angry. He is willing to be part of the social production process, but his
link to social production is that thing sitting there out in the parking lot, ready to be rolled away by whoever knows
how to circumvent the security devices. People are objectively dependent on things, chained to them, their social
lifeline goes through those things. Instead of protesting: this is ridiculous, I am not deaf-mute, why is there on
other way to join up with you others than through those anonymous things – they make themselves, on the contrary,
the fanatics of private property.
Next Message by Ida is [648].
[661] Renegade: I think that Marx meant that often times people extract their identities
from their possessions (and make assumptions about others’ identities from their possessions).
There is a lot of time and investment that goes into care, maintenance, and protection
of one’s possessions. My car gets broken into and I send the poor guy who broke into it
for 3 months to jail. It seems unfair to the poor guy! This society is really geared up to
protecting our possessions and we take less interest in living decently. The police slogan is
“to serve and protect” (and in invisible writing “property” at the end of it!!) Our will is seen
in the investment we use to protect our material goods. That is good in a way–many works
of art have been preserved that way. In a way it is bad because the punishment of mistreating
someone else’s property is sometimes extravagant. “A Tale of Two Cities” or “Les Miserables”
are two classical examples when the limits are quite obvious. I think like Marx that
people are often too caught up in their possessions and that they eventually become servants
to them rather than the possessions being useful servants to the person. Look at the way we
treat our cars–we spend time, money, etc. on polishing them, cleaning them, buffing them in
order to impress our peers. Then we end up worshipping the damn thing. It gets crumpled
in a wreck and we go bezerk. We have identified ourselves with the car and an insult to it is
an insult to us. We cry like we have lost a living being. It has limits in our society when we
screw up our priorities and we become alienated from life, nature, and each other. It is difficult
to describe where its limitations are–there is a big gray area where society defines what
is ethical or not. There are instances where it is quite obvious however such as punishing
unfairly for petty theft and letting our lecherous politicians sons get off scott-free for savings
and loans thievery!! People generally think small though, we see some small tangible object
disappear we get upset. The theft of taxes from my wages and the exploitation by my boss
204 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
are less tangible and therefore I accept it much more readily. Is there a right answer to the
second part of this question?
Hans: In the second part of the Question I was just trying to solicit opinions. I like your thought-provoking essays.
Next Message by Renegade is [1022].
[680] Sinikka: The commodity owner is concerned and protective about his property.
Depending on how much meaning each object has to the owner, the owner wants to care for,
and protect the object. If the owner has a “junky” bike stored on his porch while he is at
work, he hardly wants to bother his mind with the fact that somebody might take the bike.
Vice versa in a case where the object is of more importance or has monetary value. The
good thing about this is that the owner’s attitude toward the objects helps prevent crimes, as
he “keeps an eye” on his property.
Hans: You are not asking why theft is a major problem in this society. The overemphasis in our social order on
private property is exactly what produces crime. The protective owner helps the system limp along despite its
glaring inner defects and contradictions which manifest themselves in many ugly ways, among others in crime.
Again, the bad thing is that the owner has to divide his attention between what happens
at the site of his property and the duties or pleasures he is occupied with at the place where
he happens to be at that particular moment. It has its limits in our society where each of us
wants the limits to be.
Hans: You are turning social necessities into a matter of personal choice. Maybe some owners are too anxious
about their property, and others are too careless about theirs, and therefore they must be criticized. But when doing
this we should not overlook the fact that their property is in jeopardy, and that they do depend on these things
because social relations go through things: these things are their link to society.
Where it should have its limits is hard to say, because each of us have different needs and
values, as well as a different capability to carry the worries and concerns about the objects
that we can’t keep with us or within our sight every minute. The ideal state would be that
we could be worry free and relaxed all the time, and where ever we happen to be. Owning
only the objects that are necessary for survival could be such a limit.
Hans: I hope my remarks suggested other ways out: a society in which objects are relegated back to the status of
subsidiary things, rather then the carriers of our social relations.
Next Message by Sinikka is [681].
[751] Leo: Marx explains that the owner of a commodity has complete power. He can
sell, trade or keep his it. It is his to do with what he will.
Hans: Yes. I also see the implication in this that the commodity has to some extent “kidnapped” the will of its
owner, but yours is the basic definition.
Next Message by Leo is [752].
[929] Yoda: Owners of commodities will “reside” in the objects which are his property. I
believe this statement to be true. If you own a commodity, you are in complete power over
it. You can sell it, use it, destroy it, share it or do whatever you want with it. In our own
society there is a saying that states, “He who dies with the most toys wins”. It is too bad
that most people extract their identities with personal belongings. The more commodities
that you have, the more responsibilities you will have. Those with more commodities don’t
seem to have the same responsibilities as someone who is homeless or is a vagrant begging
for money. Owning something also has certain limits. Marx points out examples of pets or
having children. These commodities have strict laws against how you can treat these living
commodities.
Hans: This was not Marx’s example but my example in the Annotations.

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 205
Next Message by Yoda is [931].
[976] Deadhead: The commodity owners will “resides” in the objects which are his
property because he owns the commodities therefore he controls their use. He has a definite
stake in the commodities whether it be his time or money. He maintains the right to use
it himself or to transfer ownership of the commodity to someone else through barter or
sale, thus the product comes under the ownership of someone else and it is now the new
owners will which “resides” in the commodity. Private ownership is a principle that is very
important in American Society, and yes I believe it is a good thing, but it must have limits.
Private ownership is acceptable until it begins to infringe on the rights of other people. For
example: in a small community there is only one hospital. It would be wrong for that
hospital to be privately owned if the owner would not allow others to be treated there. The
same could be said about other “public” facilities such as roads, lakes, parks, and libraries.
Hans: Ok.
Next Message by Deadhead is [977].
[984] Ghant: An owner of a commodity has been given complete control over that commodity
by society. An owner may do anything he/she wants with that commodity, from
preserve it in a pristine condition, to destroy it, without fear of retribution from other members
of society. Is this a good thing? only if the commodity does not also double as a
necessary commodity in society. For instance, a man can not destroy a stream which runs
through his property if society deems that stream necessary for the continued usability of a
pasture down-stream. Otherwise, it serves to place that person in a role of responsibility for
that commodity. Along with the privileges that ownership brings, the owner also feels the
weight of obligations to that commodity.
Hans: Not to that commodity but to the private property of others.
It is very limited, just as I have explained in the stream example above. Where should it
have its limits? When an owner harms society by misusing or abusing his owned property.
Hans: I wish you would bring in a little bit what Marx had to say about this, even if only in order to refute it.
Next Message by Ghant is [985].
Question 174 is 153 in 1995ut, 186 in 1996sp, 206 in 1997sp, 207 in 1998WI, 292 in
2005fa, 312 in 2007SP, 322 in 2008SP, 320 in 2008fa, and 356 in 2012fa:
Question 174 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.
[579] Alex: The legal relations that must exist between producers so that they can exchange
their products as commodities are contracts. These contracts are neccessary in order
to “subordinate” their wills to a general agreement, so that the producers, in effect, respect
each other’s properties. “One’s will must be in unison with the other’s will in order to respect,
acquire, and transfer property.” This is what contracts are intended to do, to ensure
that the wills of the two parties are in unison. One group that might not have this relation is
the family group. Things are exchanged among family members without having to draft a
contract, rather the wills of those involved are already in unison. A very close knit, perhaps
secluded, society in which the wills of the exchanging parties are in unison, and a contract
206 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
is not neccesary, may be another example of a society that requires no juridical relations for
exchange.
Hans: Contracts can be quite informal or implicit, this does not mean they do not exist. I was asking for examples
of societies in which people have such relations with each other that they cannot exchange things! This is possible
too!
(datestring)Wed, 15 Mar 1995 22:12:10 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) You asked for an opposite
example of the one I gave. 174 Groups that do not have the legal relations necessary
to exchange their products as commodities. An example of this could be a group such as
the native American Indians. historically there was not much of an exchange happening
between tribes, in fact there was some fighting that occured. Perhpas they did not have the
type of relation necessary to exchange commodities and this also manifest itself in the form
of fighting. Another example where the relations necessary to trade are not present would
be countries that somehow offend their trading partners. The United States has many such
countries that it will not trade with, because of ethical, political, or moral grounds. When the
U.S. wishes to punish these countries in the form of not trading with them it simply severs its
legal relations and therefore there is a restraint of trade of commodities. You can really see
these legal relations at work in the recent controversy between the U.S. and China. The U.S.
wants China to toughen up its enforcement of the copyright laws, and is willing to constrain
trade to get this desired effect.
Hans: The United States can trade but chooses not to. i was asking for social relations in which people cannot
trade. An Indian tribe is perhaps such an example, if everyhting is communal property and does not belong to any
specific individual. In this case trading is impossible.
Next Message by Alex is [580].
[599] Titania: The legal relations which must take place between producers so that they
can exchange their products as commodities are contracts and the laws which enforce them.
Producers must have rules known and enforced to exchange efficiently. (Mutual respect for
one and other is essential to maintain a productive system.) As to the countries and societies
which do not have these relations, I can only think of chaotic socities (The former USSR
after the revolution, and possibly Bosnians toward Serbs and vice versa.) Even though a
community many not have a formal legal system, they can still have verbal contracts and
respect others property. Tribes in Africa may not have a formal legal systems, but they
certainly have the correct legal relations for echange.
Hans: The example of the former socialist states is an excellent one. Capitalism in East Germany was hampered
for a long time by the legal uncertainty about who owns the houses formerly owned by the people that fled in 1949
or the people that were expropriated by the Communist government.
But you are missing one important component of the social relations necessary for the exchange: in order to
be private insted of joint owners of the things, people must be alien to each other to some extent. This is the main
obstacle to exchange within a tribe or within a family.
Next Message by Titania is [600].
[612] Ledzep: Marx suggests that an owner of a commodity has his/her will attatched to or
resided in that particular commodity. So, in order for an exchange to legally take place, both
parties must alienate themselves from the commodity and give consent for the exchange. In
this sense, only the commodities are exchanged, not each others “will”. It seems as though
newborns, the under-privileged, the mentally ill, and criminals are the only ones who do not
have the power to alienate their will in exchanges. Newborns have no choice (unless you
believe in a premortal existence, in which a willful exchange/agreement was made) as to

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 207
what they will do until they reach a certain age of responsibility. Under-privileged often do
not have any choice in exchange, they just have to take what is offered to them. The mentally
ill often have not the capacity to will an exchange, so their will is not always recognized.
Criminals, actually made a willful exchange with society at some point in their lives, so they
have given up rights which they have previously held. So, I no longer categorize them in
this group. Actually, I think I answered this question in the wrong way. I was thinking of
“exchange” in an abstract context... exchange of “will” which is not necessarily tied up in a
physical commodity. Did I miss the point?
Hans: No, not at all. Your examples that in the midst of our own society some people are not allowed to acquire
or dispose of property are very enlightening.
Next Message by Ledzep is [615].
[729] Deadhead: Before the exchange of commodities can take place, both parties nust
respect each others claim to ownership of the commodities to be exchanged. It would be
stupid to trade with someone who does not own the commodities for which you are trading
your own goods. Some religious communities and native tribes do not acknowledge private
ownership. Things are owned by the community as a whole. They divide up things such as
crops, herds, and tools evenly among the members of the group each person is responsible to
contirubute to the production of commodities for the groups use. This would be impossible
in a society like ours where we live with millions of strangers but it is possible for small
close communiteies to function much like a large family and share all of their possessions.
Hans: Ok.
Next Message by Deadhead is [730].
[752] Leo: The understanding of price, private property and the value of money. This may
not exist in early society and primative classes.
Hans: You sound as if there was only one kind of property, namely, private property, and that other concepts of
property are due to a lack of “understanding”, i.e., immaturity.
Next Message by Leo is [753].
Question 175 is 151 in 1995ut, 184 in 1996sp, 186 in 1996ut, 205 in 1998WI, 211 in
1999SP, 222 in 2000fa, 235 in 2001fa, and 359 in 2010fa:
Question 175 Is anything wrong with private property?
[512] Darci: Private property (things that people “own”) owns the owner. The more
property a person owns, the more he is bound by that ownership. It compels him to take care
of it–watch out for anyone who might take it away, babysit it until it can be changed into
something “safe” or “more.” Individuals place a price on such ownership and then pay the
cost. How much personal freedom is worth, is the price for that private property and only
individuals can determine if it is worth the price or how much freedom is worth the cost. I
would not want to have the freedom of a homeless person but I would not want to pay the
price of trying to own so much that I loose perspective of what is most important to me and
that is interpersonal relationships.
Hans: Very eloquent!
Message [512] referenced by [577]. Next Message by Darci is [513].
[534] Zaskar: I understand from what Marx is saying about private property that it tends
to control the individual, rather that the individual controlling the private property. I believe
in a sense this is true. A person would not likely be willing to give up effort and sweat in
208 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
the pursuit of personal property if it was not worth something to the individual. However, it
is this worth that binds the owner to the protection of his property. It seems to be a difficult
trade off that anyone interested in accumulating property must at some point address. This
seems to me to be the problem with private property.
Hans: Excellent point! The force which chains people to their private property is also a force which motivates
people to perform. Very good connection!
Next Message by Zaskar is [535].
[543] Marinda: The assertion and defense of private property “rights” do cost the owner
something in addition to the initial cost of acquisition, even in a society with strong property
law and enforcement, such as this one. “I claim this to belong to me” is worthless without
locks and guards - otherwise, somebody will take it as if it were not private property at all.
Sometimes people do not make private property claims because it would not “pay” them
to do so. The private benefits of exclusive use may or may not exceed the private costs of
asserting property rights, depending on the circumstances. But I expect this is not the answer
you had in mind, so back to the point.
Hans: Thank you for being so considerate. Do you also know why this is not the answer “I had in mind”? Because
you were looking at this question only from the point of view of the property owner, not from the point of view of
those excluded from property.
Besides costing the owner, private property costs all the taxpayers, because we all get to
pay for the police, courts and jails, when they are protecting some people more than others
(since some people have more to lose than others.)
Hans: Don’t forget those who have to pay for private property by serving prison terms.
Another thing wrong with private property is that the more the haves have (especially in
terms of land and housing) the less is available for the have-nots. Also, the prices can be
driven up by wealthy buyers, so that poor people can less afford what is left.
Hans: Maybe there would not even be “haves” and “have-nots”.
Of course, there are also benefits to private property. Privately owned pastures are usually
in much better condition than neighboring public pastures. Caring for the range costs the
owner, but the same individual gets all the benefits of the care, for as long as one continues
to own the land. People don’t care for public land because any benefits that result from one
rancher’s investment/improvement will be shared by all who use the land, and one’s share
may not pay back the cost of the improvement (even when the total benefit would).
Hans: Do you have a cow?
(datestring)Tue, 07 Feb 1995 16:31:06 -0700(/datestring) No cow of my own! but I was
half-way raised on my grandparents’ ranches as a kid. When I visit the cousins who now run
one of the old ranches, we have “interesting” discussions, and they think I am a left-wing
enviro-nut socialist, because grazing regulations on public land for the greater good might
actually cut into their private profits. On the other hand, I got cousin Andrew to tell me all
about how much bigger and more profitable each of his sheep is since the evil government
reduced the total number of animals on Boulder mountain, and some other ranchers quit the
grazing business altogether. He’s making more money than ever because of the regulations!
The “tragedy of the commons” is all around us. I know lots of other parallel examples from
water pollution (where I work in regulation) and other environmental areas which I follow
in enviro-news sources and general news.

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 209
Hans: Yes, I agree. My question “do you have a cow?” was out of place. I was still frustrated about the things you
had written earlier, but the thing you wrote about pastures did make sense.
Next Message by Marinda is [548].
[572] Tuan: I agree with Marx ’s point of view about private property. He said that private
property controled individual, not individiual control the private property because in a sense
of worth value, we cannot give up the big value of private property for free so therefore we
need to watch out carefully to avoid damage or loss. In my opinion, I do not think anything
wrong with private property because that is my hardworking for many years at work. Also,
I deserve to have that for many year of working. Therefore, I can not let anyone take away
my property easy. On the other hand, sometimes I feel not happy like other because I care so
much and therefore I lose my fun time with all my friend as normal person. Finally, I think
you must give up something when you have other.
Hans: In a situation like this it is important to distinguish between social {1} and social {2} . Marx’s criticism of
private property was entirely on the level of social {1} , and he did want every property owner to feel guilty about a
social institution which they did not create. Here is a quote from the Preface to the First Edition of Capital, 92:1, a
part of which is also in the Annotations:
To prevent possible misunderstandings, let me say this. I do not by any means depict the capitalist and
landowner in rosy colors. But individuals are dealt with here only in so far as they are the presonifications of
economic categories, the carriers of particular class-relations and interests. My standpoint, from which the evolution
of the economic formation of society is viewed as a process of natural history, can less than any other make the
individual responsible for relations whose creature he socially remains, however much he may subjectively raise
himself above them.
This subject, which was also discussed in the List, is very important. Many individuals feel guilty about the
niche which they found for themselves, They think they have to defend capitalism, i.e., the systematic spoliation of
the globe and criminal spread of misery, in order to protect the humanly understandable adaptation they personally
have made without the intention to harm anyone.
Message [572] referenced by [649]. Next Message by Tuan is [688].
[577] Dubbel: In society today private property is seen as a sign of wealth, or success.
Many think this gives one freedom. Through Marx one sees that the owner of the property
is held to responsibilities related to owning the property. The more one owns the more he is
owned by the property. In actuality the owner is not free, property only presents the illusion
of presenting the owner with fredom. However, I would not want the freedom of not having
anything, but I can see how owning many things would limit the freedom of the owner. This
is a sacrifice many might not take. So I think too much private property creates a problem
and takes away from ones freedom.
Hans: Too bad I sent out [512] on the list. Now you think this is the party line and you have to parrot it back to
me. But from the way you are formulating it I can tell that you are unconvinced. I would much rather have heard
the point of view which you really hold.
Next Message by Dubbel is [687].
[582] Sprewell: The freedom to do what one wants with their private property is an
illusion in that the owner is manipulated by his own property to act in a socially acceptable
manner. Ownership of property brings with it certain responsibilities which can manifest
themselves as costs other than the initial purchase price. For example, owning a car brings
one the freedom to go where one wants, but that same person is bound by social expectations,
sometimes in the form of laws, to act in an acceptable way. Also one must spend more time
and money for the maintenance and upkeep of the car.
Hans: This is not the same manipulation by one’s property which Marx is referring to.
Next Message by Sprewell is [583].
210 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
[584] Telemark: The first problem I see with private property is the fact that “the haves”
always have property and the “have nots” don’t. This seems to boost their minds and egos to
a point of being better than others. This may be beside the point of this question so I will get
to that. I very much enjoyed the dog example used on page 110 in the annotations and it very
clearly shows the deceiving nature that private property owners incure upon themselves all
though they may feel as if they have something of great utility. Instead they become the baby
sitter of an inanimate object in most cases which is truly a huge responsibility, especially if
that object must be cared for and tended for generations to come. The other problem with
private property is in its foundation. Was it a selfish based act that led the “west to be won.”
As the Native Americans who did not understand or designate private property were thrown
of the land which they had inhabited for centuries. Somewhere, someone got it in their mind
that the land was theirs. Yet how did it become theirs, was it a thought process alone that
gave them all rights and privileges of governing the land or any object big or small.
Hans: Good examples. But it is not just a mental process. They were the children of emerging capitalism, and
they overwhelmed those who stood in its way with brute force.
Next Message by Telemark is [585].
[592] Translat: I believe that Marx is stating that although it is not “evil” to own private
property, such ownership can be a means of slavery. With ownership comes responsibility.
This responsibility translates into a give and take situation. If you purchase a house, you
them must pay the taxes, the insurance, mow the lawn, paint the rooms, etc. You in essence
have been enslaved by the commodity you purchased.
Hans: Neighbors quarrel over moving the lawns because they fear their property values may suffer. The thing you
own needs babysitting not only as a use value but also as a value, and the requirements of maintaining the value of
this property often go at the expense of human relations.
(datestring)Wed, 15 Feb 1995 16:23:40 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) Therefore, social relations
with neighbors should take priority. Still, you remain enslaved by an object or another
will.
Hans: Not only relations between neighbors, but also relations in families or between lovers are corroded by private
property (not necessarily homes but money). Having good relations with others does exactly not mean that one is
enslaved by another will.
Next Message by Translat is [694].
[598] Civic: The problem with private property according to Marx lies in the subordination
of the owner to the social processes of exchange. The owner of private property feels that
through ownership he/she has freedom to take advantage of the property (that he/she can do
as desire dictates). But in reality the owner is subject to an exchange agreement between
2 owners. In order to exchange, the owners must have their wills reside and be in unison
with the other owners will. Thus we see that the freedom thought of through ownership of
freedom is not really freedom at all. The paradox is that by ownership the individual gives
up the autonomy of decision by being subject to the commodity. So in reality the owner
does not control the property, the property controls the owner. I really appreciated Zaskar’s
comments that this is a trade off. I do see several different viewpoints along the continuum
of no private ownership vs total private ownership. I also agree that this is a viewpoint of
the social contexts society live in. I too strive very hard to obtain personal property, but I
can also see how I become subject to that property. My personal viewpoint is to avoid the
extremes on this continuum and seek some happy medium.
Hans: Enjoy your ride.

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 211
Next Message by Civic is [602].
[600] Titania: No, up to the point where the owners use it constructively and do not
allow it to rule them. However, the desire of others’ private property can create problems
in society. I have no problem with owning things and my neighbors owning things, but if
I talked myself into thinking that I need something belonging to my neighbor more than he
needs it, the system can break down. However, I do not see this as a weakness in the system,
but a weakness in human nature/nurture. I wonder though, how in socialism, everything
could be distributed evenly so as not to cause jealousy. I know it is stated, “from each
according to his ability, to each according to his need, ” but some are unable to see the
difference between need and want. Is socialism utilitarian enough to say this is good for
most, but not for all?
Hans: Socialism is a society which helps the individual attain what they want, not just what they need. And if
people are happy and fulfilled with what they are doing, why should they be jealous about others who do different
things? Presumably there is no basic inequality of opportunities.
Next Message by Titania is [716].
[603] Vansmack: While I think that private property is truly a necessity for capitalism,
because it is really the backbone of ideals for free enterprise or ownership for capitalist
thinkers everywhere, I do think that it does have a few bad points. The first is that it can manipulate
the owner into thinking that their private property is more important than everyone
else’s therefore making commodity exchange a nightmare. Another bad point is that private
propety can contribute to greed of the owner. An example would be a big bussinessman
trying to control as many private businesses as possible and creating a gap in the spread of
wealth. Also private property can be aproblem when the non-owners do not recognize the
privatization of the property therefore usually resulting in litigation.
Hans: Creating gaps in the spread of wealth is what private property is all about.
Next Message by Vansmack is [604].
[605] Mikey: No, but as Marx says earlier it is human nature that you want to be a stranger.
If we sold or traded all the products that we owned we would have nothing. I feel that some
of the products that you make must be kept as your own property. Not to be sold or traded.
This would give you a feeling of self worth.
Hans: Money is also considered private property here.
Are you referring to the text in the Annotations just preceding Question 174 and 175? I say that Marx denies
that humans by their nature want to be strangers to each other.
Next Message by Mikey is [606].
[615] Ledzep: There is nothing wrong with private property. Marx suggests that private
property controls the individual and the more one has the more he/she is controlled. I feel
he is actually attacking something deeper than private propety, he is attacking the process
by which one attains private property. In defense of private property, ownership teaches its
owners and its non-owners many things. It teaches the owner responsibility which in turn
builds integrity, which is inherently good. It can also teach, by contrast, the simple happiness
of having less. Private property is not often attained easily, which means the individual put
forth personal effort and sacrifice, so he/she deserves what he/she has.
Hans: Exzcellent contribution to the discussion.
Next Message by Ledzep is [616].
[621] Chp: I don’t see anything wrong with private property. Please point out what
problems private property may cause and I will address them.
212 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
Hans: The archive contains now various contributions to this subject, and if you wanted to write replies or rebuttals,
this would be great.
Next Message by Chp is [625].
[631] Stxian: Private property is a very controversial issue, in a capitalist economy, private
property and private ownership have been preached for the past two centuries which is
said to be the core and reason for economic developments and social and living standards
improvments, yet, Marx pointed out a very different story on this issue during the booming
years of capitalistic developments and during the height of the industrial revolution. According
to him, being a private owner is not the manifestation of freedom but the subordination
under a social relation. Because private property has deeply hooked and attracted the owner
by the illusion that it confers freedom on his or her, and makes the owner think that they can
take advantage of the system and private property, but instead, they are taking prisoner by the
idea of private property itself and the owners are been taking advantage by private property.
Here, I agree and disagree with Marx, because I can see that a lot of people are driven by the
desire to acquire more and more private property, namely money, land, stocks and vehicles.
In this process, people became more greedy and selfish than any other forms of society. It
is really depressing and sad to see a society turing this way in the name of private property.
From this stand point, I would say that private property is not that good of thing after all. But,
in the mean time, we have to understand that private property and ownership also have its
advantages in production and productivity efficiency, however, private owners don’t really
care about the social welfare and resource allocation and whole set of social affects, owners
just want to inclease their wealth. So, this question is really a tragic and prazzled reality for
man kind and society. All I can see from my experiences and from Marx’s arguments are
that Private property have more of negative effects than positive effects.
Hans: Very good contribution.
Next Message by Stxian is [641].
[633] Oj: Yes, private property is a form of manipulation. Marx believes that it is a form
of manipulation. A person may feel that private property gives a feeling of freedom. They
over look how they can be taken over by the private property. Owners must work in unison,
they do not get the individual freedom that they would like. They are tied into a will for their
commodity with other owners. Owners are sometimes looked at as being selfish, however
people do not know what they must go through to keep their commodity private. Owners
must consent and sign agreements saying that they will respect each other’s property. Private
property does not give the individual freedom over land that owners would like.
Hans: You are saying: what is wrong with private property in this society is that it is not private enough.
Next Message by Oj is [638].
[640] Tsunami: Everything is wrong with private property. Private property convinces
the owner that ownership implies freedom. Instead, it tricks the owner into remaining and
becoming even more subordinated under the social relation commodities exist under. Not
only is the owner’s will subordinated by social relations, it is also subordinated with respect
to other owner’s wills, whose content is found in the economic relation itself. Private property
induces and is the sick effect of commoditization of inanimate objects which inevitably
leads to the commoditization of human beings and nature. Like Henri Rouseau said, the first
man to draw a square on the ground and claim it as his should have been shot.
Hans: Very eloquent.

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 213
Next Message by Tsunami is [642].
[648] Ida: Yes. Private property isn’t fair to everyone. it doesn’t give every person the
same opportunity to ownership. Those with more commodities (or more money) have more
opportunity to own private property such as land, home, etc. On the other hand, private
property can be a good thing for the owner, it may be a reflection of sactuary, reward for
hard work, social status, etc. These traits can be good or bad. Marx doesn’t feel people
treat their goods as private property. I think they do, especially in our society, ie, car alarms,
home alarms, “private property-get out” signs, etc.
Hans: Very good contribution.
Next Message by Ida is [650].
[649] Asmith: Private ownership of property can produce income (even those naughty
profits), which can allow people to pursue higher values (higher than living to survive), such
as “relationships (which I really think matters most to me in my life).” I very much understand
the binding effects and the costs (beyond the price of acquiring) of owning property. I
am bound and freed by the ownership of ten or so rental units. I have in the past been more
enslaved to their care (and in the care of those that rent the property, you know how tenants
are). Now the positive cash flows (surplus value exploited from the tenants) have helped me
become a petty capitalist (starting another business), and have helped me to pursue a higher
education. Of course, property ownership continues to bind me, to a certain extent. This is
true even though their management is entrusted to others who now share my surplus value.
I am forced to not only consider the well being of my properties, but also the added element
of the separate management that may effect the well being of my prized possessions. Yes, it
is a hassle to own. But in the system we currently live in (which is what we are discussing),
I think we are much less free by not owning. The use of the possession must be considered
at least in part liberating (e.g. a car). The way things tend to be taken care of when publically
owned (e.g. overfishing, hunting to extinction, overgrazing, overharvesting etc), has to
be considered a disadvantage to public ownership. Although, private ownership implies the
need (and desire) to care for the private property, it also creates an efficient incentive to care
for the same. I, then, am Marx’s personification of an economic category. But, I can’t be
held responsible for the relations which have made me the creature I have become (however
much I may subjectively raise myself above them, which I may even objectively do).
Hans: The word “creature” in the Marx quote you are referring to here, and which is given in [572], is not meant in
a deprecative sense, but simply in the sense of product, something created by something else. Of course, we want
to become independent of that what created us. Knowing better the nature of the social chains that hold us down
(and these are chains) maybe subjectively painful, but objectively it is a necessity if we ever want to take charge of
these social relations.
Next Message by Asmith is [657].
[658] Renegade: Asking a question of whether or not there is anything good about private
property is an ethical question and can be answered only from one’s own ethical standpoint.
It is also a culturally and socially biased question. For example, as a woman, I consider my
body to be private property–but the state feels otherwise at times under political pressure by
certain groups. If I become pregnant and wish to induce an abortion because I do not want
this individual growing in my body, in a way the state can dictate that my body is now public
property and that I must nurture the fetus inside me. In this respect to me private property
including my body is important and good–it amounts to personal freedom. However, this
is only one example. Each case merits examination. If I am a farmer and have the last
214 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
species of a prairie toad on my land and I believe I have the right to plow it up and produce
whatever I want to even at the expense of killing off the last of these prairie toads, the state
is in a sense protecting them by making the prairie toads a public property. It is a very
complicated issue and the courts and other institutions have a hard time trying to decide
what is best. Other societies have a less discrete differentiation of what private property is
or is not–for example some Native American populations. They could not grasp the idea of
land as something that could be privatized and were exploited by ignorantly selling land to
colonialists. Obviously for these cultures, it was disastrous to their existence. There has to
be a common understanding and respect for nature and natural resources and different belief
systems for the world to continue on and also for individual freedom–and everyone has their
own belief. However, there seems to be a strong correlation between grief, exploitation of
nature and people and the privatization of property.
Hans: Excellent contribution!
Next Message by Renegade is [659].
[710] Cmanson: Along with the good parts of private property there are also negatives.
The main problem with private ownership is the anger and agression which is caused by
personal ownership. It is the will of the owner to have things his way and if someone takes
or changes one’s property it causes ill feelings. This causes the owner to always be watching
out for other people and looking after his stuff. This is similar to your dog owner story.
Hans: Yes, these objectified social relations certainly can poison human interactions.
Next Message by Cmanson is [711].
[730] Deadhead: I feel in our society that private property is important but their are some
things that should not be privately owned. Famers desrve to own their cropland because it
gives them more incentive to work hard and take care of the land. I feel those who work hard
deserve the right to own property and to use it in the way they choose but only to a point. One
exception would be public land for recreation. It would be wrong for individuals to restrict
other “non-owners” from enjoying natural beauties such as national parks, of which a limited
in quantity by nature and may not be found anywhere else. It is part of the American way
to work hard in order to buy things for personal pleasures such as cars, homes, boats, etc.
This principle of private property is an important part of what is known as the “American
Dream”, having a family, a home, a car, etc. of your own.
Hans: Good well-balanced presentation.
Next Message by Deadhead is [731].
[753] Leo: There are concerns of private property in early society and primative classes.
Here they consider commodities as community property rather than private.
Hans: The products of these societies do not even take the form of commodities. This is still your old misunderstanding.
Are you implying that in our society there are no reasons to be concerned about private property?
(datestring)Mon, 27 Feb 1995 15:07:16 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) I looked in archives for
input on this response. Private property is items that people own. They also are considered
to own their master/owners. The higher the number of items the more obligated. There is a
price attached just in guarding ones property.
Hans: Actually, I’d like you to use your brain and the archive. The archive has criticisms of private property from
many directions: some deplored the necessity to care for it, for some, it was not private enough, and some criticized
the effect it has on individual motivation and human relations. Your summary throws all this into one pot without
distinguishing between the different and incompatible approaches, and out comes a meaningless stew.

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 215
Next Message by Leo is [816].
[931] Yoda: I dont’ believe there is anything wrong with private property. I don’t own
much but at the same time I am grateful for the little things I do have. Private property in
our society is seen as a form of wealth. To Marx, private property means responsibility. I
believe this to be true also. If someone owns a lot of private property, he/she has to be very
responsible as well as careful. Those with more have to pay higher taxes as well as pay
for protection of his/her assets. The more you have the more you could lose if you aren’t
careful.
Hans: ok.
Next Message by Yoda is [932].
[985] Ghant: There are positives and negatives to private property ownership. Ownership
implies that one person has access to an object, and another person does not. This can create
feelings of jealousy, frustration, and anger, among others.
Hans: It can also deprive people of their very livelihood.
These emotions are negative, and can lead to actions which are harmful to the fabric
of society. Keeping up with the Jones is both a wonderful way of driving growth in an
economy, but it has the dual role of creating animosity between two families. There are also
many things which should never be owned by a private individual, such as national treasures
like our national parks, or the collection of historical objects housed at the Smithsonian. To
exclude any person in the U.S. from sharing in these would be a great tragedy.
Hans: Ok.
Next Message by Ghant is [986].
Question 176 is 154 in 1995ut, 187 in 1996sp, 189 in 1996ut, 200 in 1997WI, 207 in
1997sp, 199 in 1997ut, 208 in 1998WI, 228 in 2000fa, 241 in 2001fa, 273 in 2003fa, 330
in 2008SP, 328 in 2008fa, 342 in 2009fa, 349 in 2011fa, and 365 in 2012fa:
Question 176 Why are commodities not interested in each other’s use values?
[513] Darci: Commodities are not interested in use-value because use-value does not
affect them. Value is what concerns a commodity because it is through value that they
compel their owners to perform their (commodities) will. A commodity must realize the
value it contains and to do so it must face other commodities “value” to “value.”
Hans: Your last sentence is closest to the mark, and I would elaborate as follows: A commodity represents labor
which has not yet passed the test whether it was socially necessary because the commodity is up for sale, i.e., it does
not serve as a use value for its owner. For the labor in commodity A to become socially recognized, commodity
A has to find someone who needs A and is willing and able to give something for A in exchange. The question
whether the thing which the prospective buyer is giving is also a use value to the owner of A is irrelevant for the
question whether A is socially useful. I think this is behind the distinction which Marx makes between the will
of the commodity and the will of its owner. The commodity represents the social {1} context in which it was born,
while the owner represent the social {2} motivation of the exchange.
Next Message by Darci is [514].
[530] Ranger: The owner of a commodity may be interested in another commodity’s
use value but one commodity cannot be interested in the use value of another commodity.
Commodities are not human, commodities are things. The owners of commodities (humans)
can taste, feel, see, hear, smell, and think; commodities cannot. Humans have the ability,
through the use of a brain and their senses, to relate and compare one thing for another.
216 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
Commodities do not have these abilities. I have never witnessed a commodity laugh or cry.
I have never heard a commodity speak or think on its own.
Hans: All the stuff which Marx attributes to the commodities must therefore sound pretty stupid do you, doesn’t
it?
(datestring)Wed, 8 Feb 1995 08:40:10 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) No, it does not sound
stupid! there are simply some Marx issues that I do not agree with. I do find insight and
agree on many of his explanations and theories. For example, this week I enjoyed and found
insight with Marx’s explanation of the universal commodity. The explanations of the nature
of gold and silver, along with money is by nature gold and silver intrigued me. My answer to
question 176 was justly stating MY position on Marx’s theory of question 176. I have found
this Internet forum an effective way for the participants to state their ideas. I appreciate your
willingness to this type of discussion.
Hans: Yes, I am glad you are stating your criticism of Marx. Marx acts as if commodities were ghosts imbued with
their own wills, while in reality commodities are things which can not taste, feel, see, hear, smell, and think, which
can not relate and compare one thing for another, which can not laugh or cry or speak or think on their own. Marx
does as if they could, he even translates to us what they say from the commodity language into human language.
I am sure you don’t think this can be taken seriously as a science. Would you compare it with religion, or with
mysticism, superstition? Tell us about it, break one of the taboos in this class that nobody dares to mention. I think
this would really make a good discussion.
Next Message by Ranger is [531].
[535] Zaskar: I believe that commodities are not interested in each other’s use value because
they are not being compared on use value but on whether or not society has a desire
to obtain a given commodity. In other words, the commodity is validated only when society
is willing to offer something of worth to obtain the services of the given commodity. Therefore,
it seems that their value is only solidified when society comes calling. It is interesting
to me that timing must play a role in the worth of a commodity. It seems that a commodity
could be before its time or too late to be of worth to society.
Hans: Excellent observation. A commodity is concerned about social {1} , while its owner is concerned about
social {2} .
Next Message by Zaskar is [555].
[551] Allison: As described earlier in the annotations, the use value of a thing is the
ability of its properties to serve human needs...considered as a property of the thing itself.
A relationship between the thing and human wants which is attributed to the thing as if it
were a property of the thing. It is not through an expression of a commodities ability to
serve human needs that the commodity expresses its value. It is through the acting out of
the relation of one commodity to another with a different use value that commodities are
truly expressing their value. In other words it is through exchange and the interaction of two
commodities that a value is expressed and therefore a commodities interest is not in the use
value of another commodity but rather how that commodity can participate in the relation of
exchange to ultimately express both of their values.
Hans: I had not yet discovered this secret connection with the point made earlier. Excellent point. Now I see how
right the commodities are when they say in R176:3: “Our use-value may interest men, but it does not belong to us
as objects.” A more precise translation than “belong to” would be: “it cannot be attributed to us as objects.”
Message [551] referenced by [554]. Next Message by Allison is [552].
[554] Ann: Commodities are not interested in each others use values because the value
of these commodities exists in the owners of the commodities and not in the commodities

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 217
themselves. Commodity A is not interested in commodity B because they do not have human
wants and desires that allow them to be of interest to one another. The owners of the
commodities are the holders of the values because they have human desires of monetary and
subsistent needs that need to be met through the exchange process of these commodities.
Hans: Don’t use the word “value” here, what you mean is utility. I think you are going in the direction of [551]
use value is really a relationship between commodities and the outside, while the exchange relations are relations
among the commodities themselves.
Next Message by Ann is [558].
[561] Golfer: I think that the commodities are not interested in the use values of other
commodities, because they are not use-values to each other.
Hans: This is exactly right. Use values arise in the relationship between commodities and humans, but in the
relationships between commodities (which are exchange relations) only the value counts, not the use value.
You started on the right foot, but the way you are developing it in the text that follows now does not make much
sense to me. Let me know if I am missing something.
A use value must have a purpose to someone or it has no use value. In other words,
the society must have a need for a commodity or it will not have a use value. I think for
a commodity to become a commodity it must serve a purpose, and provide a comfort or
service to the owner in which he is willing to give something of worth for it. Marx has
suggested that without demand there is no use value. Thus, commodities and their use
values are not interested in each other, because they serve complety different purposes, and
are demanded or used for different reasons. (datestring)Wed, 15 Mar 1995 15:49:12 -0700
(MST)(/datestring) The only other thing that would motivate the capitalist would be profit.
The reason he makes shoes is not only to feed his family, but also to gain profit.
Hans: Did you get the Question number right?
Next Message by Golfer is [564].
[565] Tuan: I feel that commodity are not interested in each other’s use value because
we do not know if commodity are useful or even need to compare the use value to whether
society, consumer and business like to buy or accept as useful use value. In addition, it is
always that time play important role in worth of commodity. In another word, if commodity
is passed on specific day, month, or year, it is no longer value the same as before. For ex:
I bought my new car last year at $15,000 but now 1 year old, then my car is a little less
because it is now a use car and therefore my car value drop every year no matter what. With
this example, this show the time play important role in commodity.
Hans: This has nothing to do with the Question asked.
(datestring)Tue, 21 Feb 1995 18:53:08 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) I think use value will be
useful if it is need for user because if use value is relate to my needs, then I will purchase
but not, I will not consider useless. Each use value has a specific value to trade or to buy.
More importantly, use value is refered to commodity as an exchange value to other.
Hans: I do not understand your very last sentence. But more importantly: this Question referred to a very specific
place in Marx’s text. It asks for a clarification about something specific Marx wrote. In order to answer the
Question you have to work through Marx’s text. Also it may be helpful to read the other answers to this Question
in the archive.
Next Message by Tuan is [569].
[626] Braydon: Can we say it is not in their make-up to care? They are too busy worrying
about their role in society. Their role or their purpose is to exchange. Commodities can
and will have different use values due to the labor that is involved and they are willing to
218 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
exchange with any of them because that is their purpose. They do not need to know or care
about anything else to fulfill their “calling in life”.
Hans: Yes, this is the kind of translation of Marx which I am looking for. It is still not quite complete. Why is
exchange the commodities’ “calling in life”? When you say: they are too busy about their role in society, you say
something important. It seems to me commodities live in the social {1} sphere, while individuals live in the social {2}
sphere.
(datestring)Tue, 14 Feb 1995 18:48:02 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) I say it is their “calling
in life” because it is what society has created for them to do. Commodities are only in
society because of their use value to us and we exchange them to find something that could
be of more value to us. I think I can see where you are coming from when you say social {1}
is the sphere commodities live in. Are they more concerned with ownership?
Hans: Ownership relations are certainly part of the social {1} structure we all live in, but this is not what I meant.
When you say: “Commodities are only in society because of their use value to us and we exchange them to find
something that could be of more value to us” you underestimate the urgency of the need to be exchanged. Put
yourself into the shoes of a simple commodity owner: he has spent all that time producing things which he does not
need, and he urgently has to exchange that into something he does need. He has to do two things: (1) he has to fit
the use value he produced into the social division of labor, has to find someone who needs this use value so that his
labor will be validated as socially necessary, and (2) he has to find those use values on the market which suit him
personally for his personal consumption. These two things are so different that Marx uses the metaphor that these
are things wanted by two different beings: (1) is wanted by the commodity, and (2) by its owner. The commodity
needs some other commodity – any other commodity to trade places with, because this means the owner of that
other commodity needs its use value and is able to pay for it, and therefore all that labor that sticks in it is not in
vain.
Message [626] referenced by [720]. Next Message by Braydon is [628].
[638] Oj: Commodities are not interested because they all want to do their jobs as commodities.
They want to be sold and exchanged for other products of hard work. Commodities
want to be used if there is no need for them then their use value goes down the drain. It is the
work that was done to make them which determines how useful they are. They would like
to put all of the labor put into them to use. If it is not then they will be wasted and money
along with labor will be lost. This is why they are not interested in each other’s value.
Hans: You mean the right thing, but in the details your formulation takes liberties with the categories. If there is
no need for the commodities then not only their use value goes down the drain but more importantly the hard labor
expended on them goes down the drain. And the last word of your little essay should have been “use value”, not
“value”.
Next Message by Oj is [647].
[641] Stxian: The commodities are not interested in each other’s use value because 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
going to be wasted. Since comodities are the products of private labor which needs the
support and recognition as social labor, therefore, their purpose in life is exchange. 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 what commodities needed
to express their values. however, commodity owner does care about commoditie’s use value,
because commodities is their means to satisfy their needs, and commodity owner has to
obtain commoditie’s use value in service to his needs which leads him to exchange.
Hans: Very good. But you should avoid quoting the Annotations literally.
Next Message by Stxian is [757].

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 219
[655] Pegasus: We think that we are controlling the commodities, but in reality they are
controlling us. The value of the commodity lies in its labor. To realize this value, and for
the value of the commodity to be socially accepted, the commodity must be exchanged with
another. If the commodities are not exchanged, the inherent value in them are never realized
and the labor that created the value is wasted. A commodity can be exchanged against any
other commodity as long as they have different use values. The only thing the commodity is
interested in is the exchange itself.
Hans: Exactly. I think one can still say more, but you are going a long way towards explaining it.
Next Message by Pegasus is [656].
[657] Asmith: Use-value relates to the relationship that commodities (and other goods)
have to their owners. Commodities are goods produced to be exchanged for other goods. As
one commodity meets another in the market place they can be compared to each other by
each’s respective exchange value. However, the commodity must stand the test of use-value
before it can be realized as having exchange value. Through the act of exchange, it can be
determined whether or not the labor expended on it was expended in a form which is useful
to others.
Hans: This is good, although you could have addressed the question a little more specifically.
Next Message by Asmith is [683].
[720] Sms: Commodities are produced to be exchanged for other commodities. Thus they
are not interested in each other’s use-values because they have their own (agenda), use-value
to perform as a commodity.
Hans: I think you mean the right thing, but it is so terse that I can’t quite tell. I just tried to explain this issue in
[626]
Next Message by Sms is [725].
[1006] Slrrjk: Commodities are not interested in each other’s use-values because usevalues
do not enter into the relationship between commodities. Between commodities there
is no need for use-values. The exchange value or what society is willing to exchange for a
given commodity at a certain point in time is what a commodity is concerned with. Why?
Because commodities are created to exchange not to be used by their producers. Their role is
to be exchanged on the market so it seems logical to assume that exchange and not use-value
would be what they are concerned with. Only in a commodity-user or producer relationship
does use-value become significant.
Hans: Say better, use value is significant in social {2} relations, and the commodities endowed with their own wills
represent the social {1} framework into which the individuals have to fit their individual pursuits.
Next Message by Slrrjk is [1007].
Question 177 is 155 in 1995ut, 188 in 1996sp, and 190 in 1996ut:
Question 177 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 explanations of the same process.
[506] Frosty: Commodity producers exchange their commodities for several reasons.
First, when commodities are produced, it is produced through labor. This labor measures
the value of this commodity. If the commodity does not end up in the hands of someone
who needs it, the labor that went into the commodity is wasted. The commodity’s purpose
in life is exchange, according to Marx.
220 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
Hans: Yes, stop here. That’s it. This is the answer to (a). They produce provately, and through the exchange on
the market they fit their labor into the social division of labor, they get social validation that their labor was really
socially necessary. This is a painful process. But the producer does not have this social dimension in mind when
he or she goes to the market. Now we are coming to part (b):
Another reason why producers exchange their commodities is to satisfy their own needs.
This leads to the motivation behind the producer to exchange their commodities. The commodity
has no direct use-value for the producer. It does have use-value for others. But,
the owner (producer) is the bearer of the exchange-value of this commodity. This gives
motivation to sell his commodity in return for other commodities with use-value useful to
him. As Marx wrote on page 179 of Capital, “All commodities are non-use-values for their
owners, and use-values for their non-owners.” So the owner wants other commodities with
use-values that are useful to him. He uses his commodity as a medium of exchange to satisfy
his needs. This is where the motivation arrives.
Hans: Very good.
Next Message by Frosty is [523].
[538] Sinbad: Commodity producers exchange their commodites for other commodities
to satisfy their own needs. They are trying to meet their use-values by making an exchange.
Another motivation could be that the producer doesn’t want to see their production labor
wasted. In a sense it is for the good of the commodity as well as the producer. If someone’s
commodity is produce, they would want to exchange the produce before it lost its use value
(or before it spoiled).
Hans: Both of your answers are on the level if individual motivations. The implicit claim in the Question is that
the real reason why they are doing it is not identical to their motivation for doing it.
Next Message by Sinbad is [539].
[549] Dubbel: The commodities produced have use-values in them. This is given by
the labor which is put into the commodity. A commodity is produced for the purpose to
be exchanged. As Marx states, “For the owner, his commodity has no direct use-value.”
The use-value is seen by others, but for the owner it is mean of exchange. If the use-value
of the commodity is not seen by others then the labor put into the commodity is lost and
useless. The motivation of the producer to exchange their commodity is found in the owners
search for a use-value that will fulfill his needs. The owners needs lead him to exchange
the commodity he produces. The sole motivation is not seen in the use-value of the owners
commodity but in the use-value of another commodity to satisfy the owners needs.
Hans: Yes, this is their motivation. But my Question claims that that is not the end of it, that the real reason for
what they are doing does not lie in their motivation but is different.
Next Message by Dubbel is [550].
[552] Allison: a) The impetus for a commodity producer to exchange is rooted in his desire
to obtain a use value, by way of exchange, that serves his needs. Their motivation (b) to
exchange these commodities could then be seen as a desire to obtain use values that serve the
producer. The fascinating thing about this seemingly simple observation is that the role and
will of the commodity is, at least for me, consistently overlooked. To the commodity, usevalue
is of no importance, but a realization of the commodities exchange value is of extreme
importance, given that through this realization the commodity is expressing its value. The
willingness of a commodity to exchange itself against other products of labor in order to
express its value correlates directly to a producers interest and motivation in exchanging the

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 221
commodity. In this case, the producer is serving the commodity and thereby takes on a use
value for the commodity. In this light perhaps the producers exchange their commodities
unknowingly at the will of the commodity, perhaps they believe that they are only serving
themselves by gaining use values when in reality they are servants to the very commodities
that they expend so much energy to exchange. A closer look at their motivations might
reveal that they are actually motivated by the commodities themselves which wish to be
exchanged. I am not quite sure if this is exactly what Marx was trying to explain–but it
is absolutely fascinating to think of the goal or objective of the commodity as part of the
underlying, and many times overlooked, force of how or why exchange is realized.
Hans: I do not agree with your specific answers to (a) anf (b), but what you describe afterwards is indeed the thrust
of my question.
Just one point: my “motivation” is literally that what sets me in motion, it is a surface category, it is what
propels me as an individual to do something. My question claimed that this is not the real reason why I indeed do
this thing.
Next Message by Allison is [759].
[564] Golfer: Commodities are produced by their producers for certain reasons. The primary
reason is for exchange of something of worth or something desired by the owner. The
exchange is not an exchange of material, but, an exchange of labor. Labor in a commodity
has no value to the producer without the exchange. So, labor is a commodity of exchange,
otherwise, it is of no value to the producer. Marx has suggested that a commodities only
purpose is to be exchanged for something of value to the owner. The secondary reason for a
producer to exchange their commodities is to provide for his own needs. If a producer makes
shoes, his need for shoes is limited. However, if he makes shoes, he can exchange shoes for
food. This exchange will motivate him to continue to produce shoes to feed his family week
after week. Commodities have limited or no use to the producer, thus, exchange is the only
reason to continue to produce, because of the use value to others. So, exchange or a medium
of exchage is of value to provide for his own needs.
Hans: i hear you say two things:
(1) the producer has put his or her labor into something that her or she does not need.
(2) the producer wants to exchange his commodity for something that he or she does need.
These are two sides of the same thing, namely the individual motivation for the exchange. My Question indicated
that the real reason why they exchange does not coincide with their individual motivation. What is the real
reason?
Next Message by Golfer is [567].
[587] Makarios: a) Why do commodity producers exchange their commodities? b) What
is their motivation to exchange their commodities? a) Commodity producers exchange their
commodities because they have no direct use-value for the producer. Once he produces a
sufficient amount of his commodity to satisfy his personal needs or desires, his use-value has
been met. Anything above and beyond that level of production is a surplus. It is this surplus
that has no use-value, but has only exchange value. b) While the producer has a surplus of
his own commodity, he may lack another commodity that he needs or wants. Because of this
lack, the producer will try to exchange that portion of his commodity that has no use-value
for him.
Hans: These are the two sides of the producer’s motivation, but the question claims that the real reason why they
exchange is different than their motivation.
222 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
(datestring)Thu, 9 Feb 1995 02:47:54 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) Is this a trick question? I
thought, from the reading, that the “why” side of the question was answered by the fact that
the product has non-use-value for the owner, and that value could only be realized through
the use-value of someone else who doesn’t own the product. Am I anywhere close to the
right answer?
Hans: I am glad you are asking. Many others swallowed my reply without protest, but I doubt that they knew
what I meant. This Question claims that the individual motivations why people do things are not necessarily the
reasons why they do them. It is easiest for me her to think in terms of a concrete example, my own situation. My
motivation for teaching is my scientific interest in the issue and my desire to share with others what I have had the
privilege to learn. Perhaps this sounds a little idealized but this is basically it. Is this also the reason why I teach?
Has the University of Utah been established for the purpose of spreading knowledge? I doubt it very much. Its
purpose in this society is probably much closer to: putting up the pretense that there is equal access to education,
but mainly convincing the majority of the students that they are too dumb and therefore deserve the low-paying
jobs they are holding. If you have this explanation in mind you suddenly understand a lot of the institutional detail
in our educational system which otherwise would seem nonsensical and irrational. Even the fact that they don’t
install enough call-in lines for you to access the computers in the evenings.
Now the question with the commodity exchange is perhaps less colorful, but I am trying to probe into the same
direction.
Message [587] referenced by [683]. Next Message by Makarios is [588].
[683] Asmith: A). Commodities are produced to exchange. Commodities have no usevalue
to its producer other than as a carrier for exchange value, which is called “formal
use-value,” meaning not true use-value, which is really non-use value. It sounds to me
like the word “formal” should mean the opposite, that it is the proper or correct use-value.
But indeed, the formal use-value (carrier for exchange value) is the reason the producer
wants to get rid of the commodity. That is because it really doesn’t contain use-value to the
producer. B). The producer of the commodity in an exchange, exchanges his commodity for
another commodity that has use-value to him. Unless both parties improve their situation by
exchanging, no exchange will take place. It is not necessary that both parties to an exchange
receive all they hoped that they might have received from the exchange. The motivation
of the commodity producer to exchange is the producer’s desire to find use-value in an
acceptable amount in an exchange.
Hans: You got point (b) right, that is the motivation. Your point (a), the question whether the exchange value of a
commodity can be called a kind of use value, is subsidiary to (b): here you are talking about the theoretical concepts
necessary to understand (b). Question (a) is a difficult Question. I hoped to create a little more clarity about it by
the example I gave in [587]
(datestring)Sat, 11 Feb 1995 14:05:34 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) In trying to make sense
out of your reply to the posting “makarios’s 177,” and what you are really asking, I will go
in the direction of why someone would produce a commodity in the first place. I think the
reason many gave for why the producer exchanges the commodities is correct, and that is
because the producers posses commodities, and those commodities have no use-value to the
producer (to speak of). But why did they produce the commodities in the first place? That
is the underlying question. Hopefully, the one you are asking.
Hans: This is not exactly what I meant to ask, but it is a fully legitimate answer to my questions. Before we go on,
let me tell you briefly what kind of answer I was looking for (that I was looking for it does not mean it is the right
answer to the question I asked): People have to meet on the market because they produce privately and without
coordination. Their interactions on the market may be motivated individually by the efforts to make good deals;
but the social function of this interaction is to steer future production into the direction where the demand lies, by
rewarding past production in proportion to how much demand there is for it.

But now let’s look at your answer why people produce commodities
U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 223
Producers produce commodities because they are lured into the exchange process by the
fetish nature of the commodity. The commodity is mysterious in that it has some magical
force. Producers produce so that they can enjoy more and more of the use-value that the
exchange process and thus indirectly the commodity can bring. This is the social force that
through the commodity the producer is enticed to produce. The concept of a commodity
enticing a society to create more commodities gives the commodity at least an illusion (a
misleading visual image) of animal survival instincts. Marx calls this characteristic of a
commodity fetish. I call it incomprehensible, that in and of itself, that even with everything
that is crystalized in a commodity, that it could motivate a society to consume more so than
would a product produced with pride anywhere, even in a socialist society. But, maybe my
confusion lies in the commodities’ ability to motivate to produce and thus only indirectly to
consume.
Hans: I concur with your judgment here. The lure of getting nice consumption goods is not strong enough to
convert the whole social production into a production of commodities for the market. The question why everything
nowadays is a commodity is really Question 11, which nobody in this class tried to answer. Marx says that the drive
to convert everything into commodities only started after one specific commodity enters the market. Which is it?
(datestring)Wed, 15 Feb 1995 21:25:16 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) Money. But I still don’t
see why.
Hans: No, its labor power! I guess you already read it on the List.
Next Message by Asmith is [967].
Question 178 is 156 in 1995ut, 189 in 1996sp, 202 in 1997WI, 201 in 1997ut, 265 in
2002fa, 278 in 2003fa, 337 in 2008SP, and 375 in 2012fa:
Question 178 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.
[500] Vida: In a barter system owners use their products as a commodity money. However,
the contradictions that they will face in this system is that this commodity money may not be
divisible, may not be readily identifiable, may not be storable or durable. More importantly,
the owner of a particular product must find an individual that posses a certain something
that the owner desires and that individual at the same time must desire the product being
offered by the owner. Through the use of money in its current form (paper currency) these
contradictions are eliminated. The paper currency is easily divisible, while the cattle that
previously assumed the role of money was not. The value of the paper currency is readily
identifiable, while woodpecker scalps which also assumed the role money were not. Also
the paper currency is storable and durable (well for the most part), while candy bars which
may be used as a medium of exchange are not. Another benefit of using paper currency
is that the owner of a product does not have to search in vain for an individual that not
only desires his product but also had something worthwhile to him. Most anyone in modern
society would accept the paper currency in exchange for possessing their product. Imaginary
dialog: Setting: An owner of a cow enters into a market place in a barter system. Bob: I
have a cow I would like to trade for some pants. Ben: Great, I have some pants. Bob: Good
I will take 15 pairs for my cow. Ben: Sorry I only have 10 pairs but I will give you them
224 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
for 2/3 of the cow Bob: Sorry my cow is not easily divisible. Ben: Well I can’t do anything
for you go see Sue maybe she can help you. Bob: Hey Sue I have this cow I would like to
trade for some pants. Sue: This is my first time seeing an actual cow so I really don’t know
how many pants I would give you for that cow. Maybe if I could identify against other cows
then I would trade. This trade is too risky for me why don’t you go talk to Bill. Bob: Hey
Bill, I have this cow that I woul like to trade for some pants. Bill: Sorry I can’t help you I do
desire to own a cow and I do have a surplus of pants, but I would not use the cow until five
years from now. If only there was a way that I could store away the cow. Sorry I can’t help
you. Conclusion: Bob leaves the market place in possesion of cow that he does not want and
still is in desperate need of some pants. On to the next market place. Setting: An owner in
possession of a cow enters a market place which operates under a monetary system of gold
coins. Ken: I have this cow that I would like to get rid of. Wes: Just what I was looking for. I
will give you 5 gold coins for the cow. Ken: Actually I would prefer 5 1/2 gold coins for my
cow Wes: That’s no problem thes coins are easily divisible. Ken: I love this system based on
gold coins, I can easily identify the value of the gold Wes: Yes, is it not great. You can also
store away the coins in case you don not desire to spend all of them at once. Conclusion:
Ken leaves the market place without the cow he no longer wanted and received 5 1/2 coins
for the exchange.
Hans: Your tale reflects neoclassical theory and not Marxist theory. The exchange proportions in this story are
a matter of individual preferences: everyone simply has to consult his or her utility function in order to know in
which proportions they want to make an exchange. For Marx, the exchange proportions between commodities are
determined society-wide. The question how this determination works is an important one for Marx, for instance in
Chapter Three (which we are not reading in this class), the first function of money is that of “measure of value.”
And one of the contradictions Marx talks about in Chapter Two is that the realization of the value of the commodity
comes in contraction with the producer’s selection of the use value he or she wants for this commodity.
Next Message by Vida is [689].
[514] Darci: Marx says, “All commodities are non-use-values for their owner, and use
values for their non-owners. Consequently, they all must change hands. But this changing
of hands constitutes their exchange, and their exchange puts them in relation with each other
as values and realizes them as values. Hence commodities must be realized as values before
they can be realized as use values.” This argument reminds me of the which came first
scenario (the chicken or the egg). Owners have a commodity which they want to exchange
for another and must find someone willing to exchange their commodities. The second part
of this exchange involves the contradictions Marx outlines–“I want the commodity that you
are willing to exchange do you want what I have to exchange for it?” What if the owner of
the commodity does not want what you have or doesn’t want to exchange it for the quantity
you want–Hence the dilemma. Where do you go to barter for what you want and how do
you get the quantitative equivalent? “Value” is socially determined–where is the “sheet”
with all the commodities and with all of their equivalent exchange values. If a commodity
owner decides to barter he must battle the which came first the chicken or the egg value
problem. Then if a quantitative (exchange value can be reached) the barter can continue.
The U.S. society determined to make this exchange easier by using a monetary value system.
This breaks the barter system into three exchanges–use-value(decision to turn something
into a commodity)-monetary (socially accepted quantitative equivalent) equivalent value–
exchange (socially desired commodity at socially accepted exchange rate). When money is
introduced it simplifies the exchange value and the search for desired commodities because

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 225
you go the the generic market place and the exchange is conducted dollar for dollar rather
than commodity for commodity–and the mysterious element of money takes over. So the
barter system breaks down.
Hans: You are going in the right direction but your elaboration is not as crystal clear as I would like it to be. (The
Marx quote which you give is not crystal clear either as far as I am concerned. Somewhere around there in Chapter
Two Marx makes other statements which ring more of a bell in me.)
(datestring)Sat, 11 Feb 1995 08:14:26 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) I finally got into Enfo. It
works, thanks. I have read the questions and chp’s, johny, and nena’s helped me to see that
I needed to look at the social interactions involved in the barter transactions and that value
is a major problem with the system. An individual would have to put incredible amounts of
time into the search for someone with something of use value and with the exchange value
agreeable to both which makes money exchange far more simple. You go to the “market”
with money that you have exchanged for some commodity which you own and the exchange
value is written on little tags and then you decide if the exchange value is worth the use
value you have for that commodity. Then the labor value of the orange and tomatoes is
“pre-calculated”–piece of cake. This kind of takes the fun out of the barter system. But it
also shortens the time the individual spends in purchasing allowing more time to acquire
commodities to exchange for other commodities.
Hans: I guess what you call the “fun” is the dealing with specific use values and weighing of one use value versus
the other, and the dealing with specific and colorful individual situations rather than having an auction-like situation
in an anonymous market.
(datestring)Sun, 12 Feb 1995 10:22:25 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) That is correct, we seem
to spend so much time anonymously that we miss the interpersonal relationships and we
aren’t able to determine our labor value, it is determined for us (meaning the majority of
“us,” the workers)
Next Message by Darci is [684].
[537] Sinbad: If a commodity owner wants to barter he is faced with two contradictions.
He must find a commodity which satisfies his needs and suits the value in his commodity,
plus he must find someone who has a commodity which meets the level of labor in his own
commodity and this someone must want what he produces. This can be a difficult task as
seen in the following: Sam Shoemaker goes to the market to barter his new style leather
shoes. He moves from stand to stand in search for a commodity he needs. Finally he finds
a commodity he likes. The seller, Tony Toolmaker, asks him what he has to barter for his
tools. Sam responds. Tony: I don not need shoes, I have 2 good pair already. Sam: But these
are my new style leather shoes. You will be the first to own such a stylish and valuable pair
of shoes. I’ve put a lot of time and craftmanship in these shoes. Tony: They are good shoes,
but I have no need for your commodity. I can’t trade because I would be the first to own
a pair or because they have social value. I will keep my tools until someone comes along
that has a commodity which I need. Sam found a commodity which he wanted to barter
for his shoes. He felt they suited the value in his own commodity. When trying to make
the exchange he discovered Tony Toolmaker did not need shoes and was unwilling to make
the trade. It is very possible that Sam could prove that his labors are socially necessary but
Sam’s needs would have to be met by the exchange too. So the contradiction is difficult to
resolve.
226 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
Hans: Yes. In order to realize the value of his shoes he would have to offer it to a wider audience (not just Tony
toolmaker). But then he might end up with a use value in exchange for his shoes which he does not really want.
Next Message by Sinbad is [538].
[617] Johny: If the owner of a commodity decides he wants to barter the product he owns,
then he wants a product that suits his needs. First, the owner must find something he wants.
When he finally finds something he likes he faces the problem of bartering for the object
he wants. Maybe the owner doesn’t want what you have. Once the producer finally finds a
seller who wants what they have, they must decide on what the exchange proportion should
be. This could be a very long process.
Hans: I want you to bring out more clearly that more is at stake here than the double coincidence of wants. Even if
he finds someone who has what he wants and wants what he has, and even if they come to an agreement about the
exchange proportions, neither of them knows whether they traded their goods at their real social value. This value
can only be determined by offering these goods for sale to a wide audience.
Next Message by Johny is [618].
[620] Nena: Consider a situation in the market place: Suppose A needs fish and he will
exchange his tomatoes for that. As A meets B who has fish and needs pork, since A needs
fish and B does have fish, A says: “ Hi, I wanted to exchange my tomatoes with your fish,
how is that?” B says: “I don’t need tomatoes, I want some pork for my dinner tonight, do you
have that?” A says: “ I don’t have pork, but my tomatoes are good and delicious. You can eat
them for your dinner, or exchange them for pork later. At here, A realizes that his commodity
(tomatoes) as a value of commodity of the same value which suit him (it’s B’s fish in this
case), but ignore the fact that his commodity (tomatoes) has no use value for B. And B says:
”I don’t want to eat tomatoes for my dinner. What I need is pork. If I exchange my fish with
your tomatoes, I have to staying here and wait until someone’s willing to exchange his pork
with my tomatoes. I would rather wait here until some one wants to exchange his pork wit
my fish. Or if no one wants to exchange with me, I would rather have some meat, at least I
have fish, in stead of tomatoes for dinner. At here, B thinks the use value of A’s tomatoes is
zero to him, so he is not willing to exchange his fish with A’s tomatoes. And then, A meets C
who has fish and wants to exchange for some vegetables. As soon as C knows that A needs
fish and A also has what he wants (the tomatoes), C begins to rise his price for fish and ask
A to pay more tomatoes for his fish. From this example, we can see the contradictions which
the commodity owners will face when they went to barter their products. If they just simply
buy or sell their products with money, they can use the money form selling one product to
buy another product he needs, then, this kind of contradictions happened in the bartering
market place will not happen.
Hans: Good.
Next Message by Nena is [624].
[625] Chp: When bartering, the main obstacle that must be overcome by the participants
is that each must separate themselves from their product so that common ground can be
found and exchanges made. Such an exchange may go like this: (two farmers at market)
Ned: There is no way I’m giving you two oranges for one apple. Ted: With the drought
that we’ve had this year there is a shortage of apples, so they will be worth twice as much.
Ned: They aren’t worth twice as much to me. I’m only going to give you one orange. Ted:
Here’s the apple, I’ll take your one orange and hope you are in my shoes next year. The fact
that Ted has suffered a hardship makes him value his product more than those around him.
Only he knows what has gone into the production of his item for sale and he wants to be

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 227
compensated as he himself sees fit, not as others perceive it (if indeed others think less of
his efforts).
Hans: Good point and good example. I like Ted’s reaction.
Next Message by Chp is [629].
[725] Sms: When bartering, the contradictions that the commodity owners face are the
overcoming of differences in the perceived use-value by the commodity’s owner. However,
because of imperfect information, the owner of a commodity might not want to pass on
an offer for his commodity, because the current offer might be the best he will get (at the
margin). Dialog: Mr. X and Mr. Y meet each other on the street: Mr. X says to Mr. Y,
“I would like to trade you 6 Rolling Stones CDs for 2 of your tickets to a Rolling Stones
concert.” Mr. Y thinks, “Hmm, I traded 2 official Rolling Stones sweat-shirts for these two
tickets, so 6 CDs might be a good trade. However, if I wait for the next Rolling Stones
concert ticket seeker, I might be able to get something that I really want–the whole Rolling
Stones collection. But, my next best offer might only be 3 CDs.)” Mr. Y decides to take the
risk, and tells Mr. X, “I am sorry, but my ”price“ for two Rolling Stones tickets is at least 10
Rolling Stones CDs.” Mr. X sadly leaves without the tickets and his 6 CDs. This story was
for the purpose of George McMeen.
Hans: These are the constructs you need if you want to theorize this whole interaction without a concept of value,
but merely based on use value.
Next Message by Sms is [727].
Question 179 is 157 in 1995ut, 190 in 1996sp, 203 in 1997WI, 210 in 1997sp, and 211 in
1998WI:
Question 179 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.”
[596] Marinda: Marx seems consistent with this saying. One of the drawbacks of direct
barter is finding someone with what you want who also wants what you have, at the same
time. There are other drawbacks as well.
Hans: Yes, there are indeed other issues, and Marx in his discussion of the conundra of the exchange (as I call
them in my Annotations) concentrates much more on those other issues. What are these other issues?
Next Message by Marinda is [744].
[628] Braydon: Marx says that “to the owner of a commodity, every other commodity
counts as the particular equivalent of his own commodity”. It is a “universal equivalent”. He
goes on to say there is no universal equivalent.
Hans: You are looking at 180:2. The argument is here: A commodity producer who comes to the market with, say,
the shoes he has produced wants to convert his shoes into a whole array of other commodities. For him, every other
commodity is a particular equivalent of his shoes. But he will only succeed if all the other commodity producers
accept shoes as the material in which they want to express the values of their products. Even if they did, this would
make the shoemaker happy, but not, for instance, the tailor.
When two people want to exchange they have the problem of deciding wether they are
making the right decision, “double coincidence of wants”. Maybe they want both. It happens
often enough with me.
Hans: Want both of what?
The statement that money can overcome this is not acceptable to Marx.
228 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
Hans: I think this is a misunderstanding of 180:2.
If this is true then this states that every other commoditiy does not have the capabilities
to perform such an act as money can. This contradicts what was stated above.
Hans: You lost me here but I hope my remarks above were helpful.
Next Message by Braydon is [634].
Question 180 is 191 in 1996sp, 204 in 1997WI, 211 in 1997sp, 203 in 1997ut, 221 in
1999SP, 231 in 2000fa, 279 in 2003fa, 313 in 2004fa, 328 in 2007SP, 338 in 2008SP, 352
in 2009fa, 381 in 2010fa, 363 in 2011fa, 377 in 2012fa, and 191 in Answer:
Question 180 Which “deed” is Marx referring to here?
[523] Frosty: Producers exchange their commodities in order to satisfy their own needs.
Since their own commodities have no use-value to themselves, they exchange it for other
commodities which have use-value. If this exchange is not taken place, the labor time put
into producing the commodity is wasted. So, it is the producer’s natural instinct to make this
exchange. This natural instinct is the “deed” to which Marx is referring.
Hans: No, this is not it. Read another two sentences or so in Marx’s text, then you’ll get the answer.
(datestring)Tue, 7 Feb 1995 19:05:59 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) Producers have a natural
instinct to exchange their commodities with other commodities that will serve his need. Exchange
then is a general social process according to Marx. So every other commodity counts
as particular equivalent of his own commodity. Then according to Marx, the producer’s own
commodity is the “universal equivalent” for all others. But, this universality applies to every
owner so there is actually no commodity acting as a universal equivalent. The commodities
now possess no relative form to compare magnitude of their value so the commodities do
not confront eachother as commodities but as use-values. The deed then to which Marx is
referring is the act of the producer before thinking about the act.
Hans: No, Marx means a very concrete deed. You read too much, I was serious, it was just 2 sentences after the
passage which you paraphrased in your first submission. Also look at the transition from the Universal form of
value to the Money form in Section 3 of Chapter 1.
(datestring)Tue, 7 Feb 1995 22:25:20 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) I read 1.3 in the text
and Marx wrote that commodities come into this world in the form of use-values. He also
wrote that commodities possess a double form – natural form and value form. Then in your
annotations for 1.3 you wrote that money is a commodity and once it has been exchanged
by the original owner, it only has one form of value – equivalent form. Could Marx then be
referring to the form of value of the commodity as the deed?
Hans: Yes, you got it figured out, by logical thinking! It takes a social deed to link once and for all the value form
of universal equivalent with one specific use value, gold.
Next Message by Frosty is [686].
[550] Dubbel: There are natural instincts found in the owner’s of the commodity. The
owner of his commodity is not seeing the use value of the commodity but that of which
he will exchange it for to satisfy his needs. But the owner needs to bring his commodity
into a relation of value with other commodities, “which serves as the universal equivalent.”
Marx says the action of society will turn the commodity into the universal equivalent. So by
the natural form of the commodity it becomes the socially equivalent form. Which overall

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 229
Marx states is “Money.” The “deed,” I believe is the action which society brings out of the
commodity to its universal equivalent.
Hans: You are looking at the right place in Marx, but your formulation is such that I am not sure whether you
understood it. It is possible that you are thinking the right thing but I am not sure. Please try to explain it to me
again.
(datestring)Tue, 7 Feb 1995 22:16:29 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) The deed is the action of
society that can turn the commodity into a universal equivalent. Therefore the natural form
will become what is recognized as its equvialent form. This process is a social function of
that commodity. Through this process or function develops the universal equivialent form
of exchange. It becomes as Marx states “Money.”
Hans: All the development from the Simple form of value to the Universal form of value is proceeding spontaneously.
But the step from the Univeral form to the Money form requires a conscious social “deed”, namely, the
general agreement about which use value should be permanently fused with the value form of “Universal Equivalent”.
This is the deed Marx is referring to here.
Next Message by Dubbel is [577].
[622] Braydon: I realize there are quite a few people who have already written on this
subject , but I still wanted to do it because I learned something. I thought for sure the “deed”
was the exchange of the commodity because oft times we exchange commodities for money
without even thinking, just to have the “cash”. I remember last quarter selling a book back
for 17$ when I knew the book would be worth more if I held off, but I needed the cash for
other commodities. Reading where you told us to read in the archives, I discovered where
it said, “the act of exchange gives to the commodity converted into money, not its value,
but its specific value-form.” Also in section 1.3 on pg 65 it says, “The bodily form of the
commodity becomes its value form.” We are creating or giving the commodity a value form
before the exchange even takes place and it is done without even thinking. Looking back at
my example, I did think about it first.
Hans: I don’t think Marx was addressing the question how much people thought when they made their exchanges.
I think he meant the follwing with his witty remark: all the dilemmas and difficulties which Marx just had explained
with the direct barter of commodities were rather theoretical. The traders never let it come to this situation but by
a social deed they designated one commodity to be money, and therefore instead of direct barter they engaged in
sales and purchases.
Next Message by Braydon is [626].
Question 181 Marx says that a state in which a chaotic mass of articles is offered in exchange
for a single article is a social form prior to barter. Do you agree? (The beginning
of Jevons’s Money and the Mechanism of Exchange (1875) describes such a “chaotic prebarter.”)
[559] Hippie: I disagree. I would call this exchange a primitive form of barter. Isn’t
bartering exchanging items for other items in proportions agreeable to both parties? Granted
the exchanger of the single article assumes that he will recieve equivalent value out of the
exchange, this is a messy form of bartering.
Hans: I think you are missing some subtle differences here.
Next Message by Hippie is [560].
[574] Eagle: Yes, I agree. This is what lead up to the barter system. It seems natural that
one person may have several small items with very little use value to him, but they may have
some use value for someone else who may have an article that has a lot of use value. To
230 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
the second person, the use values of the many small items may outweigh the use value of
the one he already posesses, with the opposite being true for the first person. They will of
course trade to gain the higher use value.
Hans: No, Marx said that this was a social form which preceded barter, it was not yet barter. You are arguing that
it was a form of barter. This is a subtle question. In what respect was it not barter?
(datestring)Wed, 15 Mar 1995 06:27:19 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) It was not barter in that
there are a group of things being offered in exchange for only one. In a barter system it is
equal exchange, one for one. In the situation described in the question, one person will make
out very well and the other will get the short end.
Hans: Congratulations, you got closer to the solution than anyone else in the archive. The purpose of this is
obviously not to have an equal exchange, and this is enough reason to call it a social form prior to barter. What is
the purpose?
Next Message by Eagle is [575].
[585] Telemark: Good’ol Mr. Jevons, counting those utils, whatever a util is! I do agree
a barter in most cases is a transfer of an object for an other in which both individuals are
simultaneously getting objects for which they have use values for. In this so called chaotic
mass exchange for one item brings out many interesting points. When I read the question I
envisioned the hopeful antique buyer who for one price buys the estates of little old ladies
when they pass on. They don’t know what they will get when they open that door. Will there
be any objects for which they have a use value. I’m sure they hope so, but I’m also sure that
is not always the case. Exchange value is also ignored. The estate buyer probably feels he
does ok in the end after buying twenty estates, yet to me is seems no more than a simple
game of poker, a gamble or if you will a social form prior to a barter.
Hans: No, this is not it. The element of chance does not convert this transaction into something which is not yet
barter, which is “prior” to barter. This is still an open question. Nobody even has come close to the answer.
Next Message by Telemark is [586].
[642] Tsunami: Marx says that the exchange of surplus products between tribes is an
exchange of products and not commodities because the exchange is not one of two distinct
objects of utility. The surplus products cannot become exchange-values and thus commodities
because, as of yet, they don’t exist as non-use-values.
Hans: Did you mean this to be an answer to Question 182?
Next Message by Tsunami is [651].
Question 182 is 160 in 1995ut, 192 in 1996sp, 209 in 1997WI, 205 in 1997ut, 214 in
1998WI, 233 in 2000fa, 312 in 2005fa, 343 in 2008SP, 343 in 2008fa, 368 in 2011fa, and
382 in 2012fa:
Question 182 Why is the occasional exchange of surplus products between tribes not an
exchange of commodities but one of “products”?
[532] Scarlett: If someone is producing a commodity, it is specifically for trade or exchange.
The basis of the market is that it is necessary to trade your commodities for other
commodities in order to survive. We are not able to function without the items that we trade
for. As a result, people involved in a market become dependant on that market and on the
exchange values of the commodities they produce. The explanation for why an occasional
exchange of surplus products between tribes is an exchange of products rather than commodities
lies in the word surplus. “Surplus” implies that the tribes are able to subsist on

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 231
what they produce themselves, and only exchange what they don’t use. Therefore, they are
not dependent on the market.
Hans: Excellent. This is the kind of “translation” of Marx’s text into everyday language which I have been looking
for.
Next Message by Scarlett is [533].
[575] Eagle: Because a surplus indicates that these “products” are extras and have no use
value to the tribe who own them. As Marx explains, it can only be a commodity if it has a
use value to its owner.
Hans: But here Marx says that these goods were not commodities!
(datestring)Wed, 15 Mar 1995 06:32:18 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) These products are
produced for the tribes use but they have produced more than they need so they are willing
to exchange their extras for extra products that another tribe has produced. You are right,
they are not commodities.
Hans: Because they are not produced for the exchange.
Next Message by Eagle is [576].
[588] Makarios: The key word in this question, as it appears to me, is “occasional”.
When different tribes meet only every so often, any trade that takes place is only in the form
of products because commodity exchange takes place only through repetition over time. If
different tribes meet on a regular basis, the need or desire for the other tribe’s products becomes
established, and those products them become transformed into commodities because
certain amounts of those products, greater than that which is required for the subsistence of
the tribe, are produced solely for trade.
Hans: Exactly. This is the right answer.
Next Message by Makarios is [589].
[602] Civic: The reason that this exchange is still called “products” exchange is that it has
not met the definition of commodities in a commodity exchange. Because they were surplus
products and not originally meant for exchange, they were produced originally only for the
good of the tribe. A commodity owner in the exchange relationship must have no need for
the use value of the product, only the exchange value. That is the first condition for products
to be defined as commodities. These products do not meet the 1st condition to be considered
commodities. Also if these products were produced only to be exchanged as commodities
then the commodity relationship would also be internal to the tribal community. In other
words the tribe would understand that some products are only to be produced in order to be
exchanged (commodities). In the tribal community the production of certain products is for
the good of the whole. In this case it was only after the community had been satisfied that
the surplus was allowed to be traded.
Hans: You are right on the second count, and this alone carries the argument. Regarding the first point: surplus
products are not use values for the owners exactly because they are surplus products.
Next Message by Civic is [662].
[606] Mikey: Because one tribe is trading a large number of products for just one product
of the other tribes. If that one product is of such great craftsmanship that the other tribe must
produce many products to get the same use value out of it.
Hans: Did you get the Question number right?
Next Message by Mikey is [714].
232 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
[627] Sammy: This question was very difficult for me. It seemed that the exchange between
these two groups met all the criteria for the goods being commodities. They were
non-use values, the exchange was between individuals from different tribes, and the exchange
was desired by both patries. The one thing that I kept forgetting about was the thing
that we have talked about in the past. These products were produced not for exchange, but
for personal use. Only after it was realized that the surplus products were of no use were
they considered for trade. This was the key which I had been missing. These goods were
only products, not commodities, because they were not produced for exchange, but eventually
they will likely become commodities after they are traded by owners other than the
producer.
Hans: One should think that the repetition of these occasional exchanges very quickly leads to commodity exchange.
But this is not necessarily so. Production of commodities for each other would create a much greater
interdependence of these tribes than they would have been comfortable with.
Next Message by Sammy is [632].
[681] Sinikka: Question 182: Such surplus products are usually meant for survival and
consumption. Some tribes also specialize in producing certain products that the other tribes
are incapable of producing. As again, the other tribes specialize in producing something
else. As they all need these products, this interaction helps each of them.
Hans: No, the word “surplus-products” indicates that it is not produced for the exchange but it was produced for
their own use but it turned out that they had too much of it.
Next Message by Sinikka is [682].
[727] Sms: Commodities are produced for exchange. When different tribes meet only
occasionally, any transaction is in the form of products, because commodity exchange only
takes place on a regular basis. If the tribes are continually exchanging, the products then
become commodities.
Hans: Yes.
Next Message by Sms is [738].
[926] Marlin: Marx says, in effect, that commodity exchange only occurs with repetition.
This must be translated into a time consuming process. I f a pair of tribes meets only “occasionally”
there can be no pattern of repetition in these meetings and therefore it must be a
product exchange.
Hans: How does repetition make a difference?
(datestring)Thu, 2 Mar 1995 11:13:37 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) Repetion implies production
for exchange. Sure the tribes may meet frequently to exchange surpluses, but are
they exchanging the same items each time? If so were these items produced as surplus for
the sole purpose of exchange? If a good is a commodity, its production is for the sole intent
of exchange.
Hans: Yes, this is the answer I was looking for. Repetition itself does nothing, just like time itself does nothing.
But if this repetition leads to it that production comes to be geared for the exchange, then this is a big difference.
Next Message by Marlin is [928].
Question 183 is 161 in 1995ut and 218 in 1998WI:
Question 183 “As soon as products have become commodities in the external relations of
a community, they also, by reaction, become commodities in the internal life of the community.”
Why? Describe this “reaction” process.

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 233
[560] Hippie: A commodity is something of value. If there are products which have very
little exchange value within a community, no one is too concerned about how much any one
has, say furs to indians. Furs were so common to indians, they were very cheap. As soon
as the Europeans came over and started trading booze for fur, fur was now not so cheap. To
the alcoholic Indian, fur was very valuable. As the product gains value, it is worth more to
everybody.
Hans: Yes you got it. The example with the alcohol is excellent. It is quite drastic, and the same effect can also be
observed with other commodities. But there is no harm in reminding everyone of the crimes which were committed
against the Native Americans.
Next Message by Hippie is [593].
[632] Sammy: When products produced for personal use are exchanged because it is
discovered they are surplus goods they become commodities outside of the group or tribe.
This event causes a reaction by the members within the community. They realize now that
the product can be exchanged for others. This may lead to production of surplus specifically
for trade purposes, either within, or outside the group. Therefore the products which were
formerly only produced for consumption are now produced for exchange, thus becoming
commodities.
Hans: Yes. This is what Marx was talking about.
Next Message by Sammy is [645].
[928] Marlin: This reaction can be explained in many ways with different examples.
The main point is that if there is a product in a community that has very little value, it
will remain that way until there is someone who instills a greater value into the product by
offering something of value in exchange for it. Once a product has a rising value it will
begin to be produced for the sole purpose of exchange. This makes it a commodity.
Hans: You cannot use Marx’s concept of value for products which are not commodities.
(datestring)Thu, 2 Mar 1995 11:24:19 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) Exchange value? As I
understand it, value is used only for a commodity. Exchange value can be used to describe a
product which is not yet a commodity.
Hans: Yes. just replace “valu” by “exchange value” in the above.
Next Message by Marlin is [930].
Question 184 is 162 in 1995ut, 346 in 2008SP, 371 in 2011fa, and 385 in 2012fa:
Question 184 What is the difference between the direct barter of products and the exchange
of commodities? Why does the direct barter of products usually involve surplus-products,
and why does it usually take place between members of different communities?
[556] Zaskar: I believe the difference between the direct barter of products and the exchange
of commodities lies in the established use-values of the articles being exchanged.
It seems to me that Marx is saying that before a product becomes a commodity it must be
created out of the need to be exchanged by its owner. The product is not yet at this stage and
is something that the owner simply hopes to exchange in some haphazard and unsystematic
way. Once the social need and recognition for such a product is realized it is exchanged in a
more systematic way such as the labor hours necessary to produce it.
Hans: A “product” may even be produced without intention to exchange at all. The exchange enters only as an
afterthought. Commodities, by contrast, are produced for the exchange.
234 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
I would suspect that direct barter of products usually involve surplus-products to different
communities because these rudimentary products may be scarce in certain area or at
least hard to come by for its residents. Likewise, referring to the above paragraph, I would
imagine that these bartering transactions between communities is very unsystematic and
haphazard.
Hans: Please try again, keeping in mind what I said above.
Next Message by Zaskar is [557].
[594] Chance: In exchanging commodities, persons are trying to obtain use-value. In
other words, they exchange something they possess for something that they need. Something
that can provide them with use-value. In barter transactions, persons are normally just trying
to get rid of surplus items. Items they normally cannot exchange for anything of use-value
to them. The reason other communities are usually involved, is because other communities
have different needs than those close around us. In other words, comparing a large region
of communities, those communities are often very heterogenous and have different needs.
Bartering allows a person to get rid of an item for a different type of item, but not necessarily
something of use-value – just a different item.
Hans: You are going in the right direction. The right answer is: commodities are goods which are produced for
the exchange. The barter of products is the bartering away of things which they had extra but which they had not
originally intended to be exchanged.
Next Message by Chance is [595].
[629] Chp: Bartering takes place because of: a) a lack of mutually beneficial common
denominator (most often currency), b) one party involved in the exchange does not have
sufficient funds to carry out the exchange, or c) one or both of the parties involved have
no desire in obtaining funds, only that which is being exchanged. Different communities
specialize in different areas of production and barter because all of their other basic life
sustaining needs are met. An exchange of commodities usually has to do with day to day
human needs.
Hans: You are describing situations in which people resort to barter in an otherwise monetized economy. They do
so only because of some lack, which shows that barter is generally considered second-best, a last resort. Marx was
talking about very primitive societies which had not yet developed commodity production.
Next Message by Chp is [754].
[645] Sammy: Direct barter of products is usually a need related, or impulse type of
transaction. When it is realized that an excess of a product is owned by a group, a solution
to letting it go to waste is sought. Many times the solution is trading for anothers groups
excess goods. Why is this trading done by groups rather than individuals? The answer is
that in communities that practice direct bartering, the goal is to provide for the group as a
whole. What one lacks the group lacks. For example, one indian tribe is a group of hunters,
another farmers. It often is the case that the hunters will have an excess of meat and hides,
where as the farmers may have excess grain and vegetables. If the groups could make use of
the surplus the other has then trading may take place. On the other hand we have exchange
of commodities, which is a carefully thought out process. It usually involves individuals.
These individuals, rather than trying to produce all the goods they need, will choose a small
amount that they can easily produce large quantities of. This product, it is hoped, will be
traded for the other products that the individual is lacking. Commodity exchange example: F
produces grain. B weaves cloth. J makes shoes. Each of these individuals produces as much
of their products as they can. They can not use all they produce by any other means than

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 235
to trade it for other things they need. F trades his grain for b’s cloth and j’s shoes. In their
society there are producers of many different products. Each producer produces surplus to
trade for other needed good that they can’t produce. Only by exchanging their commodities
can these individuals obtain all the necessities they need.
Hans: Good.
Next Message by Sammy is [756].
[1003] Slrrjk: Direct barter of products is not as complex of a process as the exchange
of commodities is. For example in a tribal society goods such as food and clothing are
produced for the group by the group and if the group has produced everything it needs with
no surplus then there is no need to barter. But if a surplus does happen to occur then excess
goods would be traded with different excess goods of another community. Bartering goods
implies that goods were not originally intended to be exchanged and it is usually some type
of solution for getting rid of a surplus. Exchanging commodities on the other hand is a more
calculated process. Goods are produced specifically for exchange and the process is usually
done on an individual scale versus a group or communal one. Bartering is more of a reaction
to a given situation (usually to address needs or to dispense of something) and commodity
exchange is based on a carefully though out process to try and make a gain. The direct
barter of products usually involves surplus items because as I said earlier it is a reaction to
a situation not a planned process and a surplus of one group usualy benefits the shortage or
needs of another group, usually belonging to a different community. I think bartering takes
place between different communities because what one group has an excess of the other
group may be lacking in due to geographical location,etc.
Hans: Regarding your last point, a more important consideration is that if one group has surplus which another
group within the same community needs, then these goods will just be given to the other group without barter,
because neither group considers itself the exclusive owner of these socially produced goods. Between tribes it is
different; each tribe owns its products.
Next Message by Slrrjk is [1004].
Question 185 is 163 in 1995ut, 197 in 1996sp, 199 in 1996ut, 218 in 1997sp, 210 in
1997ut, 229 in 1999SP, and 391 in 2010fa:
Question 185 Why does a general equivalent become necessary as the number and differentiation
of commodities increases?
[593] Hippie: As the number of commodities increase, the merchant must keep track
of various exchange values. If there are twenty different commodities that are regularly
exchanged with one another, that is nineteen different exchange values that must be memorized.
That is the exchange rate of a to b, a to c, a to d, etc. There is no way the primitive
merchant could have stayed on top of the current exchange rate, memorizing the 380 different
equivalences. It is much easier to equate the different commodities to one unit of
measurement. Now for twenty different commodities, instead of having to know 380 different
rates, we only need to know twenty, that is the rate of a to $, b to $, etc.
Hans: Instead of 380 it is “only” 190, but this does not invalidate your argument.
Next Message by Hippie is [818].
236 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
[608] Eddie: A general equivalent becomes necessary as the number and differentation
of commodities increases because with a small number of commodities, they remain usevalues.
Only when commodities become high in number do they lose their use-value and
start having an exchange value.
Hans: Let me explain it back to you to see if I got you right. As long as people owned only few things they did not
exchange them because they used these few things all the time and only looked at them as use values. But as people
acquired more and more things, they considered them not only as use values but as wealth which can be converted
from one form into another by the exchange. This is an interesting and subtle thought.
As exchange values they also become valueable as to the owner because he can use this
new exchange value for his benefit to get other commodities of equal value. This equal value
will eventually be converted to money. So an ever increasing number of commodities will
be ever increasing amounts of money.
Hans: Marx would not agree with this because the driving force promoting the commodity form was not consumers
owning lots of things (they usually didn’t) but the organization of production. Nevertheless this is good and original
thinking on your part.
Next Message by Eddie is [609].
[614] Scarlett: The general equivalent becomes necessary as the number of differences
of commodities increase because the variety of commodities makes exchange more difficult.
The varying needs of the producers as they exhange in the market place makes it difficult
for each person to trade directly for the items that they need, as was illustrated on p.112 of
the annotations. The general equivalent becomes necessary in order for sellers and buyers to
interact.
Hans: Yes.
Next Message by Scarlett is [733].
Question 186 What kinds of commodities were the first to assume money form?
[499] Vida: A variety of things have assumed the form of money since the birth of man.
What has served as money in a physical form depends on the different times and different
places. The things that have assumed the role of money do however share important charactersitics.
The commodity was either that commodity which was “the most important article
of exchange from outside,” or that commodity that formed the “chief element of indigenous
alienable wealth.” In some societies the earliest form of money came in commodities such
as cattle, stones, and animal parts.
Hans: Ok. Marx also mentions slaves.
Next Message by Vida is [500].
[505] Frosty: The commodities possessed by the nomads were first to assume the money
form. Nomads did not have permanent homes so they traveled from place to place. They
took all their possessions with them. These possessions were movable and in forms that
were foreign to communities visited by these nomads. These contacts with the communities
encouraged exchange of products. Marx wrote in Capital that the money form is attached
to most important articles from outside which are primitive and spontaneous forms of local
products.
Hans: The most important articles from outside are not the primitive and spontaneous forms of local products, but
the primitive and spontaneous forms (i.e., the forms which come naturally and spontaneously) in which the local
products express their exchange values. Why would this be the case? And Marx also enumerates a second group of
use values which often served as primitive money.

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 237
(datestring)Sun, 5 Feb 1995 20:52:36 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) On my first submission
of this questions you asked about the second group of use-values which often served as
money. According to Marx, it is the object of utility which forms chief element of indigenous
alienable wealth. Some examples are cattle and men (in the form of slaves).
Hans: Yes.
Next Message by Frosty is [506].
[536] Ranger: Different communities used different kinds of commodities to assume the
role as the “universal commodity.” Marx mentions that slaves have been used to assume
money form. Some ancient American Indian cultures used beads and animal teeth as their
universal commodity. Other groups have used sheep, cows, or other livestock as their universal
commodity. More recently gold has assumed money form. However, within the last
60 years several nations, such as the United States, have officially retired gold money form.
Hans: Marx tried to give not only an enumeration but he also supplies some rationale why these things served as
money. Perhaps it is not contained in the Question explicitly enough, but I wanted you to explain me this rationale,
i.e., give me not just a list but a structured list, which groups the items and indicates what the rationale for each of
the groups is.
Next Message by Ranger is [542].
[569] Tuan: I believe all socities have the different earliest form of money. For particular
in slave’s period, the earliest form of money of slave mostly came from gathering and
hunting animal (meat, fur, and part), stone, tools and cattle. Even my country, Vietnam, my
earliest form of money mostly came from food such as rice, fruit, and tools.
Hans: You are implicitly saying that the most central use values for the respective society became money. This is,
according to Marx, one possibility, but not the only one.
Next Message by Tuan is [572].
[580] Alex: There appears to be two kinds of commodities that first assumed the money
form. First the money form came to be attached to the most important articles of exchange
“from outside” . “These are in fact the primitive and spontaneous forms of manifestation of
the exchange-value of local products.” Commodities that might fit into this form are objects
that nomads had with them when they traveled, and through this travel and contact with other
nomads began to trade. Second the money form came as the “object of utility which forms
the chief element of indigenous alienable wealth, for example cattle.” This form perhaps
came about as a result of humans beginning to settle down into villages, etc.. rather than
being nomadic. At this stage things such as cattle and slaves took on the money form.
Hans: Yes. This is the kind of answer I was looking for. Your are reproducing Marx’s reasoning in your own
words. This shows me that you did not miss the points Marx was making here.
Message [580] referenced by [583]. Next Message by Alex is [667].
[583] Sprewell: The money-form was first attached to two kinds of commodities. First,
it was the most important articles of exchange from outside groups, such as the Nomadic
peoples. Because they moved around so much all of their possessions were in a movable
form and therefore alienable. This encouraged the exchange of products, which were “the
primitive and spontaneous forms of manifestation of the exchange-value of local products”.
The second kind of commodity was the “object of utility which formed the chief element of
indigenous alienable wealth”. It seems to me that this money-form would have been used
within communities as well as with outside groups. A certain object emerged as the unit by
which wealth was measured within that community, for instance cattle or slaves.
238 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
Hans: I always get Alex’s answers first because he comes first in the alphabet, but you seem to have a couple of
points which Alex [580] did not make or did not make so clearly. The idea that the geographic mobility of the
objects encouraged their exchange is an interesting one. Unfortunately I am not an anthropologist and cannot back
up my hunches with concrete factual knowledge. It would be interesting to hear what modern anthropology says
about Marx’s historical survey of the early forms of commodity production.
Next Message by Sprewell is [755].
[607] Eddie: The commodities which first took the form of money were human slaves.
In the Nomadic people who traveled and intereracted frequently with other groups of people
would trade slaves, or human labor. So there is a bit of a irony here which says that a
commodity is produced by human labour, and that human labour was first used as money to
trade. This human labour would then be used to produce other commodities.
Hans: Nomadic tribes did not have slaves (as far as I know).
Next Message by Eddie is [608].
[618] Johny: The first commodities that assumed money form were commodities owned
by nomadic people, because all of their commodities were moveable. When Nomadic people
would move around they would run into foreign lands, and the exchange of products were
encouraged.
Hans: The question was one about money specifically, not commodities in general.
Next Message by Johny is [619].
[647] Oj: There were many examples in which commodities assumed money form at first.
It all begins, because of the social view. People form a common ground (money) to trade
and exchange goods (commodity). When the settlers use to roam the lands they met up with
different people of different cultures. Well they thought in order to find out a little more
about each other they would exchange commodities. Unites States military regiments would
trade their horses away for food and warm clothing from the indians. Nomads would travel
around a trade cattle and other commodities for money or other commodities from others.
During the French bourgeois revolution the rich would pay money for slaves to work on their
lands. These are examples where commodities assumed money form.
Hans: Next time you have some free time at yout hands I recommend that you get a pile of history books from the
library and just read around in them a little bit.
Next Message by Oj is [734].
[654] Pegasus: The first commodities that assumed money form were 1) the most important
commodites from outside the community or 2) the most valuable commodity inside
the community. The commodity which the money form sticks to first is arbitrary and varies
from community to community. Nomads are the first to develop the money form. Their form
of existance encouraged the money form because they were constantly moving and carrying
all their possessions with them.
Hans: This is a clear and concise summary of the main points.
Next Message by Pegasus is [655].
Question 188 is 199 in 1996sp, 221 in 1998WI, 350 in 2008SP, and 375 in 2011fa:
Question 188 Why could the idea to use land as money arise only when capitalism was
already developed?
[586] Telemark: Land would have to already be well established as private property and
that this property has a given value to a given amount (acre etc.) so that in exchange for the
land the land owner could simultaneously get another commodity with a different use value

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 239
and an idea of value for the land. In order for all that to happen it would be necessary to have
a capitalist social relation in place to understand private property and ownership understood
and agreed upon by any interested parties. To have all these factors set up and ready for
exchange would take a developed capitalist society which has been in place and functioning
for some time.
Hans: You did not get it.
Next Message by Telemark is [728].
[604] Vansmack: I think that the idea to use land as money could only arise after capitalism
because real estate markets are virtually worthless without the aid of capitalist principles.
The reason that land could be used as a valueble asset or even money in capitalism
is because it is an outlet for more money to be made. The land on the Las Vegas strip is an
excellent example. Since capitalist casinos have been put in place there the land in that area
is worth much more money than the actual buildings or even more than what takes place
inside of them. If it were not for this capitalist casino economy the actual desert land would
be virtually worthless.
Hans: This connection between land values and profits is a very good insight. But for the Question at hand, a
different aspect of “land” is relevant.
Next Message by Vansmack is [736].
[624] Nena: I think the reason why the idea of using land as money arise only when
capitalism was already developed is that only under the well developed capitalism, man can
own his own land legally. The land here become the private property of man under the well
developed capitalism. So, if he owns the land as he own his body, he has the right to sell
the land or use it to exchange (as money) as he make himself into the primitive material of
money (in the shape of the slave). But, before the well developed capitalism, the land is the
public property, (at least there is no well defined regulation or law for people to own his own
land), every one can use the land, every person has the right on the land, which means that
every one owns the land. On the other hand, no one has the right to possess the land and turn
it into his own private property and use it as money (by selling or exchanging it with other
commodities).
Hans: You can go even deeper and ask: why was land not treated like any other private property then, and why is
it now?
Next Message by Nena is [630].
Question 189 is 166 in 1995ut, 200 in 1996sp, 214 in 1997WI, 221 in 1997sp, 213 in
1997ut, 290 in 2003fa, 327 in 2004fa, 321 in 2005fa, 342 in 2007SP, 352 in 2008SP, and
377 in 2011fa:
Question 189 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.”
[531] Ranger: Gold and silver, by nature, are minerals that are extracted from the earth.
These two minerals, by nature, serve the purpose of conducting electricity and heat. Gold
and silver also can be used as utensils or tools. Subsequently, gold and silver are not by
nature money. On the other hand, money is by nature gold and silver. Gold and silver
inherently embody the requirements needed of a money. Gold and silver can be measured
quantitatively, through measurement by weight. Gold and silver can be divided into smaller
parts and reunited back to an equivalent sum. Pure gold and silver are also able to maintain
240 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
a consistent quality. Since gold and silver inherently posses these qualities, “money is by
nature gold and silver.”
Hans: Yes. This is the answer.
Next Message by Ranger is [536].
[555] Zaskar: I believe the saying reflects Marx’s notion of the divisibility of money,
gold and silver. In other words, the relationship between the three items is that they can be
divided and precisely broken apart into different units and subsequently assembled again.
Also, I believe the saying indicates that by nature, gold and silver are useful for many other
things and are widely recognizable as value.
Hans: Yes, in other words, the physical properties of gold and silver are those which a good representative of value
should have.
Next Message by Zaskar is [556].
[567] Golfer: Gold and silver are natural minerials that are extracted from the earth.
These minerals have several purposes which enable us to put value on them. However, these
values are similar to that of linen, because, their value is based on the use of the mineral,
and are not considered a money. The other way to look at these minerals, gold and silver is;
as a medium of exchange, or a money. This is due to the properties of these minerals, and
their ability to be measured by weight, with a given value that has been accepted and can be
divided without a loss of value. Because of this quality money is gold and silver.
Hans: In the last two sentences you seem to be getting on the right track, but it is not explained crisply enough.
(datestring)Wed, 15 Mar 1995 15:55:40 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) I have indicated the
reason gold and silver are money is because they are both accepted as money by the capitalists,
and they can be divided without losing value. For example; you cannot divide a coat or
it loses value, nobody wants part of a coat. However, gold and silver can be divided and still
hold portional value.
Hans: Yes, this is one of the properties of gold and silver which justifies the aphorism: money is by nature gold
and silver.
Next Message by Golfer is [568].
[576] Eagle: Gold and silver have other use values than being used for a method of
exchange, like money is. They can be used for various other things. Also, they don’t have a
consistent value to all people. A pound of gold could be worth $100 to one person and $150
to another. In money, one dollar is always worth exactly one dollar. Money is by nature gold
and silver because, as Marx puts it, it is “capable of quantitative differentiation”, “divisible
at will”, and it is “possible to assemble it again from its component parts”.
Hans: You are still using the subjective concept of value!
(datestring)Wed, 15 Mar 1995 06:36:52 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) Gold and Silver also
have a use value to some people. They are also used as building materials and materials of
possession, such as jewelry. Money can’t be used for either of these purposes.
Hans: With respect to use value, it is correct to speak about use value “to some people”. But the value of something,
in Marx’s terminology, is a social given, it is not correct to speak of the value of something “to” someone. This is
what I meant by the subjective concept of value.
Regarding the question, your answer is formulated in such a way that I am still wondering whether you mean
the right thing.
Message [576] referenced by [293]. Next Message by Eagle is [758].
[589] Makarios: No commodity is by nature money. A commodity can only take on
the money form after it has been socially recognized as a universal equivalent, which can

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 241
only take place after the commodity develops exchange value or, in other words, no longer
has any use-value for the producer. Gold and silver, in their most basic, natural form, have
use-values in that they can be used to make things or serve specific physical purposes. These
commodities, however, are easily mobile and directly alienable to the producer. Because
of this ease in mobility, gold and silver are naturally some of the first commodities to be
capable of transforming into universal equivalents, hence, money.
Hans: Yes.
Next Message by Makarios is [865].
[595] Chance: I am not sure I completely understand what Marx is trying to say here.
My interpretation of the sentence is as follows. Money has value. In a sense, it is worth alot
(Marx uses gold and silver). Money can purchase other items of value. Gold and silver are
not readily exchangeable for value. They must first be converted into money to have easy
exchangeable value. I don’t know if I am off the mark, but Marx to me seems to be refering
to the liquidity of gold, silver and money. For sure in our day and age, money is more
valueable than gold and silver. After all, Smith’s takes cash, checks, credit cards (forms of
money) but they don’t accept gold!
Hans: As a ground rule, all the Questions are formulated in Marx’s framework. When I use the word “value” in
them, I mean what Marx understands to be value. When I use the word “gold”, I mean the money commodity under
the gold standard. At Marx’s time, gold was completely liquid. Someone could take a golden bracelet to the mint
and have it converted into gold coins of equal weight at no charge.
Next Message by Chance is [746].
[609] Eddie: A form of money must have two components 1) Divisible at will 2) Assemble
again from component parts These two definitions come from Marx. I also think that money
by nature is gold and silver because they have other uses than a form of money. Gold is used
for tooth fillings, jewelry, and is highly conductive in electricity. Silver is used for plates,
jewelry and products in kitchenware. So not only do gold and silver have good divisibilty
in weight but they also have a value if they are not only money. So, as a dual valuable item
they can still be exchanged for other goods even if they are not used as money.
Hans: Yes, at Marx’s time money was a commodity, i.e., it not only had value but also a use value in addition
to the use value arising from its money function (I will call this its “natural” use value). By saying “money is by
nature gold and silver” Marx indicates that this “natural” use value of gold and silver has properties which also an
independent form of existance of value must have. One can think of money as a form of existence of value in which
it exists in a pure form, not tied to a particular use value but convertible at will into any use value.
Next Message by Eddie is [743].
[616] Ledzep: Gold and silver have dual purposes. By nature, they are minerals and can
be used to create other commodities, similar to the example of linen presented in the text.
Gold and silver, on the other hand, have an intrinsic value, they can be divided quantitatively
and reassembled without losing value, an essential feature of money.
Hans: Don’t call this peculiarity of their use value an “intrinsic value”. You should use generally in these Questions
Marx’s terminology. And it is not very clear. I still have to riddle around what you mean and how that what you
say relates to the Question.
Next Message by Ledzep is [933].
[619] Johny: Gold and silver is not by nature money because we are acquainted with
only one form of money. This form of money simply forms the appearance of the value of a
commodity. Money is by nature gold and silver, for the simple fact that gold and silver have
a money value that is quantitative to money. Gold and silver are “divisible at will”. Gold and
242 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
silver also have a universal value, in which everyone knows the dollar value that is attached
to it.
Hans: Try again. I think by now there should be enough material in the archive about this Question that you should
be able to answer is correctly.
Next Message by Johny is [747].
[630] Nena: From my understanding, the sentence “gold and silver are not by nature
money” means that gold and silver are originally only the two resources provided by natural
on the earth. As people discover them and used them or exchanged them with something
else, they started to become commodities. Gold and silver, at the first time, represent nothing
but their own use value (their physical shapes), or the labor time spent to discover them. But
as people finds the scarcity of the gold and silver, they become much more “valuable ” than
before. And, by accident, because that the gold and silver has the capability of divisible or
can be assemble again from its component parts at one’s will, (these properties of gold and
silver are originally given by nature), the gold and silver became the money commodity and
began to assume the function of money, (because the money commodity need to have the
ability to represent every other commodity’s value by its own value). That is why we said
that “ money is by nature gold and silver”, because the money also has the ability of divisible
are assemble and can express the value of every other commodities. But, my question is: Is
it really we use gold and silver to be the money commodity “by accident”? Because there
are a lot of resource or commodities on the world which also have the ability of divisible and
can be assemble again from its component parts at one’s will. Why do we only said “money
is by nature gold and silver” but not by any thing else?
Hans: There are some other properties: compactness, you can easily carry large amounts of value in your pocket,
and it does not spoil, and it is easily recognized, and there is enough of it around, etc. Tell me, what other commodities
would you propose which comes even close?
Next Message by Nena is [643].
[634] Braydon: I am doing a fourth question because I saw this one and I think I understand
it and wanted to make sure. Gold and silver are separate commodities. You can use
them to create other things with use value, like jewelry. They are separate from the actual
form of money. I think the reason why he says “money is by nature gold and silver” is
because of its physical properties and how they can function as money. He goes on to say
on page 102 that money must be quantitative, must be divisible at will and readily united.
This must be so because magnitudes of value are simply quantitative. The magnitudes of
value serve as a manifestation of value as does money, so they must have the same types of
qualities. Gold and silver posess these.
Hans: Exactly. Yes you understood it right.
Next Message by Braydon is [726].
[650] Ida: Money is made, in the form of coins, from gold and silver. However, gold and
silver have other uses other than to be made into money, ie. jewelry, bullets, etc. The “value”
of money is determined by the amount of gold and silver used to form that money and the
value people place on gold and silver, not vice versa.
Hans: First of all, you are still working with a subjective definition of value. I think the best explanation of what
is wrong here is that of Asmith, which I put into [293]. Then, for the purposes of this question you cannot assume
that gold and silver are money. Rather the question centers around an explanation why gold and silver were socially
chosen as the money commodities.
Message [650] referenced by [293]. Next Message by Ida is [741].

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 243
[656] Pegasus: Because gold and silver have many other use values than as money, gold
and silver are not by their nature money. Money is by nature gold and silver because of the
natural traits that they possess. They have the same uniform value as long as they are the
same quality. They are easy to exchange because they are relatively easy to transport, and
they can be divided into smaller component parts and put together again.
Hans: Yes.
Next Message by Pegasus is [692].
[665] Oregon: Money is by Nature gold and silver, is shown by the fitness of the physical
properties of these metals for the functions of money. Money is described in a two-fold
process. One is to serve as the universal value of all commodities, or as the how the magnitudes
of how their values are socially expressed. And two “ since the difference between
the magnitudes of value is purely quantitative, the money-commodity must be susceptible of
merely quantitative, the differences, must therefore be divisible at will, and equally capable
of being re-united”. gold and silver posses these properties by nature.
Hans: Yes, this is the right answer.
Next Message by Oregon is [666].
[711] Cmanson: I believe Marx is saying the meaning of money has all the qualities of
gold and silver, although they have many other uses. Therefore, gold and silver are not by
nature money, but they posses the qualities of money. The definition of money contains the
qualities possessed in gold and silver. They are used in almost all customs around the world.
Hans: What do you mean by “meaning of money” or “definition of money”? (Only after this clarification will I be
able to tell if this answer is right).
Next Message by Cmanson is [939].
[930] Marlin: Gold and silver contain the monetary value of money.
Hans: What do you mean by this? What is the “monetary value of money”?
In other words, gold and silver have the ability to function as money.
Hans: Every commodity has the ability to function as money.
In addition, the metals are commodities and can be treated as such through the medical
use of gold (dentistry), production of jewelry and flatware, and other specialty uses. Gold
and silver have all the properties of money
Hans: Which properties of money do you mean here?
but money does not have all of the properties of gold and silver. (datestring)Thu, 2 Mar
1995 11:43:27 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) Let me attack this from a different angle. Marx
says that “the money commodity must be capable of purely quantitative differentiation”, or
it must be 1) divisible at will, and 2) possible to reassemble it. gold and silver are capable of
these by nature. Here is where the difference comes in, they also contain other uses, some
listed above, which money does not.
Hans: Yes. Giving these examples instead of abstractly talking about the “properties of money” clarifies it a lot.
Next Message by Marlin is [959].
[986] Ghant: Gold and silver are not by nature money, since gold and silver can through
their physical properties be used for other purposes. However, money is by nature gold
and silver, because money is little more than an idea, which must be expressed through an
exchangeable, quantifiable, divisible and unifiable medium, such as gold or silver.
Hans: Marx did not think that money is “little more than an idea.”
Next Message by Ghant is [987].
244 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
Question 191 is 202 in 1996sp, 217 in 1997WI, 216 in 1997ut, 226 in 1998WI, 236 in
1999SP, 280 in 2002fa, 294 in 2003fa, 331 in 2004fa, 346 in 2007SP, 356 in 2008SP, 371
in 2009fa, 401 in 2010fa, 383 in 2011fa, and 397 in 2012fa:
Question 191 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?
[666] Oregon: The act of exchange gives to the commodity converted into money its
specific value-form. Money form is the the specific form of the commodity is the form under
which certain social relations manifest themselves. Here commodity becomes a symbol, in
so far as it is value, it is only the material envelope of the human labor spent on it. Money is
reduced to a mere symbol that represents all the work spent on the commodity and the time
to exchange the commodity for more money.
Hans: You are describing here what the money form expresses, but not what the money form is. A commodity
is in the money form if it is that use value which is directly accepted by every other commodiity producer as the
general equivalent in which they express the values of their things. We are talking here of commodity money,
i.e., the commodity gold is in the money form. This means it is in the privileged form of direct exchangeability,
everyone will accept gold in exchange for their products. They will not say: sorry but I do not need gold right now,
because they accept gold not for the sake of its use value but because gold is the commodity in which also all others
express their values. Nevertheless, gold cannot be considered a symbol of the labor in their commodities, because
gold contains labor, it is more than a symbol.
Next Message by Oregon is [850].
[682] Sinikka: The “specific form of value” would be the value a larger group of people
put on something. Example: for the Spanish Conquistadors the gold objects, owned and
used by Incas, Aztecs, Mayas, etc., had “special value”. The same goes for “collectors”,
who rob Natives’ gravesites.
Hans: You are confusing value with use value, and you are not noticing that Marx is very conscious about the word
“form” and does not just use it as synonymous for “kind”. And when you call the outside intruders and robbers the
“larger” group of people you are blaming the victims.
Next Message by Sinikka is [707].
Question 192 is 227 in 1997sp, 219 in 1997ut, 297 in 2003fa, 328 in 2005fa, 359 in
2008SP, and 387 in 2011fa:
Question 192 Was Roscher erroneous when he said that money is a pleasant commodity?
[542] Ranger: In my opinion Roscher was terribly wrong. Money is anything but a
pleasant commodity. As an example let’s consider the economic catastrophe facing Mexico.
Money has played a leading role in causing their current economic condition. If their economy
was solely based on average social labor time then Mexico would have a fairly strong
economy. Yet, a major part of a country’s economic state is determined by that country’s
money exchange value, compared to another country’s. Mexico’s economic problem arises
from the exchange value between Mexico’s money form (Peso) and other nations’ money.
There is nothing pleasant about the fact that a country’s value may be based on what others
judge that countries currency to be worth, compared to their own currency.
Hans: Your sentence “If their economy was solely based on average social labor time then Mexico would have
a fairly strong economy” makes me wonder whether you think that the first chapters in Capital describe what,
according to Marx, a fair economy should look like. No, Marx describes the capitalist economy here, and he would

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 245
argue that events like the Mexican currency crisis are merely the further development of the contradictions which
Narx’s analysis already discerned in the simple commodity.
Next Message by Ranger is [693].
[566] Marinda: Yes, in several ways. Money is not just a commodity, it is the universal
equivalent form of value. Gold may be a commodity in itself, but Roscher does not say
what makes gold or any other commodity become “money”. The only thing he could have
meant by calling it “pleasant” is that he thinks it is fun to have lots of it for oneself, to do
with as one pleases. Money does have use-value for the one who possesses it, but it is also
associated with much un-pleasantness indeed. (Just for fun, from my office wall, taken from
some newspaper - ) The love of money is the root of evil. Book of Timothy, ch.1 The lack
of money is the root of all evil. George Bernard Shaw. There’s a certain Buddhistic calm
that comes from having...money in the bank. Tom Robbins Would Marx say that social {1}
relations (or relations of production) which require one to have money to survive are the
cause of much evil?
Hans: Probably yes. I think part of Marx’s joke is also that being “pleasant” is not a property of something which
one can discover in an object. It is one of these attributive properties like beauty.
Message [566] referenced by [2008SP:844]. Next Message by Marinda is [596].
[660] Renegade: Unless Roscher can literally eat, drink, or breathe money I believe it.
The most he can do is use it to kindle a fire or stuff his mattress with it. Remember the fable
of Midas’ touch?
Hans: You are giving two different arguments here. Of course, dollar bills themselves have no use value. But it is
justified to call their exchangeability a use value.
Midas, by contrast, lived, like Marx, under the gold standard. Of course, if everything you touch turns into
gold, this becomes a little obnoxious, but for ordinary mortals gold does have a use value even apart from its role
as money.
Is Roscher therefore vindicated?
Next Message by Renegade is [661].
[709] Cmanson: Money is a pleasant commodity because it allows one to acquire other
things which one would want. The only reason that money would be considered unpleasant
would be if one did not have enough to get the commodities one wished for.
Hans: Someone who gets shot not because he has any enemies but because someone wants to have his billfold
may also, in the last seconds of his life, perhaps have the enlightenment that money is not such a good idea even
for those who have it.
(datestring)Fri, 3 Mar 1995 10:42:26 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) I agree there are other
reasons why money would be able to not be considered as pleasant. Would this shooting
type of reason you described be possible even without money. If someone has a loaf of
bread that someone else wants could one not be shot for the bread (just like the money).
Hans: Burglars usually don’t break into your home because they want to use your TV, they sell your TV as soon
as they have it. The same with much car theft, etc. And in a non-monetized economy someone would go to one of
the free Chuck-A-Ramas when he or she is hungry. No need to shoot anyone for that.
(datestring)Sun, 12 Mar 1995 21:53:00 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) I see your point about
the bread and the Chuck A Rama. But, I do believe there are things one could have that
others would want, and not just to sell them to get money. I believe the only your theory
would work would be if everything was free, not just the Chuck A Rama. One example I
can think of is basketball shoes would these also be free in our new society? I know people
are being shot for there shoes, and I am sure they are not selling them, but are wearing them.
246 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
Hans: People must go through hell before they are ready to shoot someone for a pair of basketball shoes. Capitalism
creates this hell systematically.
Next Message by Cmanson is [710].
[785] Tuan: Money is a pleasant commodity according to roserous’s statement. The
reason is that money can make us happy with our desire, wish, or anything. Money can help
other when they need help for necessity of life like food, shelter, and clothes. Money can
also be unpleasant if we do not have buy stuff that we need for living.
Hans: Marx ridiculed Roscher’s “discovery.” Your answer does not give us any clue why Marx might have done
so.
Next Message by Tuan is [884].
Question 195 is 173 in 1995ut:
Question 195 Are people, by their atomistic attitude towards each other, responsible for
their lack of control over their own social relations?
[533] Scarlett: I’m assuming that by “atomistic attitude” you are referring to the idea that
people assume that when they act, they assume that their actions only affect themselves, and
do no realize that they are part of a whole and their actions touch everyone. I think that this
is a good explanation for the lack of control over social relations. As a society, we each act
individually in what we think are our best interests. The problem, however, is that while
each person believes that they are responsible only for themselves, they don’t realize that as
a society we act as a whole. In this society, our individual actions can have effects on others.
If we acted as a group, taking responsibility for everyone, we might have more control over
the way we relate to each other.
Hans: The situation is not so clear cut. People are forced by the social structure in which they find themselves to
act atomistically. It is not obvious how one can break out of this vicious circle. Emergence?
(datestring)Tue, 7 Feb 1995 09:58:25 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) I agree, and I’m not sure
what the first step would be to break out of the “viscious circle,” I guess what I’m saying is
that ideally, everyone would show more compassion towards everyone else, instead of being
forced to act in one’s own self interest.
Next Message by Scarlett is [614].
[558] Ann: No, I do not believe people should be responsible for their lack of control in
their social situations due to this atomistic attitude. In most instances we did not choose to
be placed in our social situations. Because of this lack of choice not all will be relatively
“happy” in their social situations and can therefore result in atomistic attitudes towards one
another. We should not be held responsible for our lack of control because of this lack of
individual choice.
Hans: This is an issue which comes up again and again and leads to heated debates. Are we repsonsible for racism
if we are nice to all the Blacks we happen to know but do nothing to stop the institutional racism which is so obvious
all around us? I agree with you in that we should not feel guilty about it. But we still should feel the mandate in us
not to ignore it – or let me say this better, because one cannot ask someone to feel in a certain way: every human
being will have feelings about this, and all we have to do is to be open enough that we can experience these feelings,
and act on those feelins or at least support those who do try to rectify this situation.
Next Message by Ann is [663].
[659] Renegade: No and yes. If I take the no stance then no one would feel that he or
she could make a difference. Some cannot by fate of life–sometimes I feel I cannot raising
children as a single parent, trying to get through school, dealing with a low socioeconomic

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 247
status, etc. If I say yes, I may be unrealistic about what others can do and add to my own
alienation. I think Marx would say that due to the division of labor and inaccessibility to
the means of production and lack of control over one’s own products has a great deal to do
with an atomistic attitude. In a sense we are removed from the natural world. Maybe I am
being romantic, but life and death and living seemed to be a lot more sane when we had to
directly deal with natural forces and not all the added bullshit of being slaves to a system that
could care less whether or not I have health care as long as I pay my taxes to subsidize the
military or pay property taxes so that I don’t lose the humble home I live in and not be able
to afford to get my kids proper medical care. Life is not fair not even in nature–some have
better chances than others for surviving and living and being happy. But you would think
that because of our capability of abstract thought that we could rationally make the world a
better place to live with without exploiting each other.
Hans: Excellent answer, and a lot to think about.
Next Message by Renegade is [660].
[779] Challenge: I can only use my experience to relate to and answer this question. I do
believe that even though we cannot necessarily control the social situations and relations we
find ourselves placed in, we should be responsible for our actions. I believe that whatever
situation we find ourselves in, the judgment of whether we did good or bad will be how we
handled the “cards we were dealt.” For example, I have a cousin who now finds herself with
4 children, no husband, and living on welfare. (I don’t want to go into welfare at this point).
My point is that she is in a real bind and a situation that isn’t pretty. Her challenge is to
deal with the situation. Our challenge around her is to change our attitudes towards her and
realize she is doing the best she can.
I believe we each have a moral responsibility to make the world around us a better place.
Furthermore, I believe we are responsible for our actions, be they lack of control, even if we
do not have control over our social relations. My cousin is responsible for her actions, even
though her situation wasn’t completely by her choice.
I guess my question would be, if we are not responsible for our “lack of control” in social
relations, who is? Surely someone else is not responsible if my cousin wigs out!
Hans: This is a submission which brings up some extremely important issues. Please comment about this. Hans.
[780] Tuan: I think people sometimes do not care about responsibility of lack control
of social and relation. Also, people do have attitute toward to people who lack control of
social. I myself believe we all need to be responsible of lack control of social even though
we do not happy to have lack of control of social. However, we need to consider the situation
that they have no choice and have attitude change toward them. For ex: one of my friend
are on welfare because they are refugee and they have been here for 4 mos. They do not
understand the language to be able to work so they need government assistance for couple
mos to go school and learn the language. I can relate their situation even though they do not
want welfare because they do not have any choice. More importantly, I do have an attitute
problem with people who lack control of social because they intend to do so or their purose
of laziness on any government assistant.
Hans: Others have answered this question along similar lines, and perhaps I did not make it clear enough: this is
not at all what was asked. Perhaps by reading the last two sentences in Chapter Two you will understand better
what was asked in this Question.
Next Message by Tuan is [785].
248 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
Question 196 Show in history as well as in every-day capitalism that “money is the first
form of capital.”
[714] Mikey: I think the question that you are asking is that with money you can do
anything. But in history if you had money you used that money to make more money. You
used this same idea till you had enough money then at some point you had power in society.
Once you had both this is were if you had money you used it and cheap labor to make
commodities which in return you sold to make a profit in the form of money. This same
ides is used today in capitalism. One person or a small group of people put up money as a
investment. the investor’s get money back from the invested money they first put up which
over time gives one more money and power.
Hans: Power in pre-capitalist historical periods was definitely not based on money. Also the availability of labor
for everyone to hire is a modern phenomenon. You are a victim of the neoclassical myth that every form of
production is a variant of capitalism.
Next Message by Mikey is [829].
[743] Eddie: As discussed earlier on in Marx book was the topic of fetish. I believe that
money feeds the fire for a fetish. In civilizations that barter and trade for commodities, they
are doing so to have the basic necessities of life. When money comes about, people begin
realizing that they can have more and more.
Hans: Exactly! Very good formulation: “feeding the fire for a fetish.”
In the days of slavery during the 1700’s, slave owners realized that with more and more
slaves then more and more cotton can be produced. With this production of cotton, a commodity,
a slave owner can reap the benefits of all of this labor. He can trade the extra cotton
for money. With this money he will be able to trade for whatever he wants. In the case of
trade the slave owner will only be able to trade for necessities of life. To build up to trading
for a mansion the slave owner would have to trade someone with all of his cotton for a
huge mansion. This sounds ridiculous without the money involved. I do believe that money
caused capitalism. It may have not started right away when money came about. But money
has eventually caused for a capitalism state. Money drives our passions for commodities.
Commodities of wealth. Without money we would only want basic necessities of life.
Hans: Excellent point.
Next Message by Eddie is [802].
[747] Johny: Marx states “Capital first confronts landed property in the form of money;
in the form of monetary wealth, merchants’ capital and usurers’ capital.” This is the history
of capital’s origin. Money is the root of everything.
Hans: I wanted you to formulate it in your own words, so that I see whether you have understood it.
The commodity, labour, and money markets are all in the shape of money.
Hans: Don’t take the existence of the labor market for granted. In many societies one cannot hire free laborers.
It was exactly Marx’s point that in early history, before the existence of free laborers and industrial capital, some
monetare forms of capital already existed.
Money has to be transformed into capital by C-M-C or M-C-M. C-M-C is the transformation
of commodities into money and then the money back into commodities. M-C-M is
the transformation of money into commodities and then commodities back into money.
Hans: I’d like a little more detail about how money is the “first” form of capital in contemporary society.
Next Message by Johny is [748].

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 249
[818] Hippie: There is an old saying that “It takes money to make money” I have found
exceptions to this rule, but not very often. Money in history is the first form of capital,
because without it, you were just bartering at the market. A shirt, for instance could not be
capital. Say you had nothing but “the shirt off your back”. Obviously, no one wants your
sweaty shirt, but lets say it was new. Your shirt cannot be considered capital. New, your shirt
is worth 10 dollars. You can start a lemonade stand for 10 dollars worth of capital. So you
go to the wholesaler to buy bulk lemonade with your new shirt. Obviously, the wholesaler
is not going to give you ten dollars worth of lemonade for your shirt. You must first go sell
your shirt and bring the 10 dollars back to the wholesaler who will now gladly give you 10
dollars worth of lemonade for your 10 dollar bill, not your shirt. Thus, even in its lowest
form, money is the first form of capital. Your shirt can be viewed as money, but not as
capital. As soon as you get money for your shirt and use the money as capital, it becomes
so.
Hans: If you start a new business then you need all your capital in the form of money. Afterwards, when your
business is going, then usually only a small part of your assets will be in the form of money at any given time.
This is the answer to the question how in everyday capitalism money is the first form of capital. Regarding history,
originally there were no lemonade stands. The first capitalists were usurers. These were pure money capitalists.
Next Message by Hippie is [961].
[850] Oregon: Without money there is no capital. In the age before the theory of capitalism
the elite were the class that had all that was wanted, materially. They had the money so
they indirectly had all the capital. Money then converts itself into capital. So to have capital
one must have something to convert itself into capital. The universal equivalent money.
Hans: What is your definition of capital?
In pre-capitalist societies the ruling class was not defined by their possession of money. Money was not terribly
important. The ruling class had very specific social duties and privileges.
Next Message by Oregon is [851].
[865] Makarios: As Marx points out, the process by which money becomes converted into
capital takes place as early as the sixteenth century through mercantilism. The merchants buy
commodities, such as textiles, with money (M-C). The merchants then take the commodities
to some place in which they are scare or in demand, and sell them for more money than they
originally paid for them (C-M), thereby completing the circular movement for that particular
commodity at that particular time (M-C-M).
Hans: Capitalists were around much earlier than the 16th century. The usurers Jesus chased out of the temple were
capitalists.
Today, though the concept is the same, the process is slightly different, in that, the capitalist
need not ever come into actual contact with the commodity. Be it commodities, or
partial ownership in an industrial firm, the capitalist exchanges money for stocks or bonds,
or for commodities, and later exchanges them for money in the market.
Hans: Marx calls this the highest and most mystified form of the turnover of capital, and he might have adduced
this example as additional evidence for how close the link between money an capital is. But he didn’t. At this place
he only said that any new capital has to begin its turnover in the form of money.
Next Message by Makarios is [866].
Question 197 is 176 in 1995ut, 210 in 1996sp, 227 in 1997WI, 280 in 1997ut, 299 in
1999SP, 317 in 2000fa, 336 in 2001fa, 380 in 2003fa, 425 in 2004fa, 432 in 2007SP, 443
in 2008fa, 459 in 2009fa, 496 in 2010fa, 506 in 2011fa, and 528 in 2012fa:
250 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
Question 197 Give examples for “advancing” and “expending” money.
[663] Ann: If you were to advance your money you would be letting go of it in all
intentions of getting it back. An example of this would be if you were to open your own
market to sell goods. It costs money to purchase the land, tools, necessary products, rent,
and the goods to be sold. Your intentions are to sell these goods you have purchased in order
to pay off your total costs and begin making profits. If you were to expend your money
you be letting go of it with no intentions of getting it back. Examples of this would be the
purchasing of food or other expendables such as shampoo or soap. Your intentions are to
use the products yourself and not to resell them again.
Hans: Exactly.
Next Message by Ann is [776].
[667] Alex: Give examples for “advancing” and “expending” money. advancing: There
are a number of ways in which money can be advanced given Marx’s deffinition of advancing
money. One example, of a market that is dedicated to the advancing of money would be
the intermediate goods market, one can imagine that an individual may see some prospect
of making money by, obtaining goods that are neccessary to the production of some other
goods, and then selling those (intermediate) goods to the producer of the final good. Another
rather simple example of the advancement of money would be the grocery store, where the
owner advances money to build and run a store, with the hopes that his money will be more
than returned in the form of profits from sales of groceries. expending: When one expends
money, one spends the money with no intention of getting money back in return. An example
of this would be the consumer who purchases groceries, the groceries are meant to
be consumed and therefore cannot at that point be resold. Another example of expending
money would be when a consumer purchases gasoline, obviously if the gas is burned off in
the running of the engine then it cannot be resold in order to get money. Whether money
is advanced or expended is not necessarilly dependent on the type of commodity in question,
rather on the intent of the purchaser. One can imagine that most commodities can be
purchased with two intents in mind, first to resale the commodity and get money back, (basically
money for money) and second with the intent to use the commmodity, with no hope
of resaling it.
Hans: Exactly. Good examples.
Next Message by Alex is [781].
[686] Frosty: According to Marx, “advancing” money is when a commodity is bought in
order to be sold again. This takes the M-C-M form. He lays out money for a commodity in
order to recover money by selling that commodity. “Expending” money is when a commodity
is bought without the intention to be sold. This commodity serves as a use-value. This
takes the C-M-C forms. An example of “advancing” money is the process of purchasing real
estate. Many people purchase extra property in order to turn around and sell it. Sometimes
if the seller fixes up the property they may receive more money than they initially paid for
the property. An example of “expending” money is buying commodities such as food or any
other necessities. Necessities are something you need in order to survive. So then money is
converted in the end to these necessary commodities which serves as use-values.
Hans: right.
Next Message by Frosty is [768].

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 251
[687] Dubbel: When you advance money you are using money in hopes recovery more
money in return. Expending money is when you us money to purchase something and do
not expect any money in return but the simple use of the object purchased. Examples of
advanced money would be in properties or real estate by ventures. Were I work we do
exactly this. We purchase properties such as condominiums and apartment complexes that
are usually in poor condition. We restructure the mangement and fix them up. making them
worth more, abling use to sell them for more money. Expending money I believe would be
like house hold products such as cleaning items, also food, these items are purchased and
simple used or expended. The thought of making money from them is not the intention of
the buyer.
Hans: Right.
Next Message by Dubbel is [786].
[692] Pegasus: When you are expending money you are using it without the prospect of
getting it back. This occurs for instance when you are buying neccessities like food (C-M-
C). On the other hand, when you are advancing money you are buying commodities to resell
them. This would happen for instance when a retailer purchases goods for his store to sell
again to his customers. When you are advancing money you have every intention of getting
that money back (M-C-M).
Hans: yes.
Next Message by Pegasus is [841].
[693] Ranger: I recently purchased some stock shares (I must be a capitalist pig). I
purchased these stocks so that I could hopefully resale them and make some money. This
is an example of advancing money and follows the pattern M-C-M. Real estate agents are
examples of people who commonly practice the advancing of money. They purchase land
and buildings explicitly for resale, not to use or consume the land or building. This may also
serve as a good example to CIVIC and CIVIC’s question concerning middle-men and the
advancing of money. Recently, I also purchased a bar of soap. I purchased the soap to clean
my sweaty, odor ridden body, not to resale it for a profit, this is an example of the expending
of money. Although I suppose I could try to resale the bar of soap, I doubt that anyone would
want to purchase a used bar of soap. Items like shampoo, milk, and shoes, that I purchase
for my own consumption are examples of expending money.
Hans: Your jokes are very self-deprecating.
Next Message by Ranger is [772].
[694] Translat: When money is advanced, it is for the purpose of continuing the cycle
of C-M-C or M-C-M. In the case of the linen and coat, the taylor buys the linen at $x to
produce the coat which he intends to charge $y for. It is like the say that you must spend
money to make money. Expending money can be likened to when something is purchase not
to be resold such as a painting or a collectible item. Many people collect things, I personally
collect unusual bells; I have no intention of reselling them, but it does cost money to purchase
them. Therefore, money is expended.
Hans: Anyone out there want to invest some money in a great collection of unusual bells? Just kidding.
Next Message by Translat is [874].
[695] Stalin: I believe that advancing money is like taking a calculated risk. An example
would be loaning someone money who I would feel confident that they would repay me.
Or, another example would be starting a business where I would hope to make my initial
252 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
investment back and then profits after that. I believe that expending money is alot like
pissing it away on things like food, beer, or entertainment. It is spending money with the
intention of never seeing a monetary return on it. The return is feeding yourself, or doing
things from which you derive pleasure.
Hans: As long as people consider expenditures for food to be a “pissing away” of money, the capitalists can count
on the full cooperation of the workers in their efforts to depress wages.
Next Message by Stalin is [833].
[707] Sinikka: “Advancing” money: Buying bonds for the rainy day. “Expending”
money: Buying a rain coat for the rainy day. “Advancing” money: Spending money on
education, with future paychecks in mind. “Expending” money: Spending money playing
video games at Cross Roads Plaza.
Hans: Excellent examples (although the education versus video game thing is perhaps a tad moralistic).
First Message by Sinikka is [668].
[708] Cmanson: An example of advancing money would be someone who purchases
cloth and then uses the colth to make a jacket and then sells the jacket for a profit. The same
type of purchase without the labor process where something is bought and held for awhile
and sold at a profit would be advancing money. Expending money would be something like
the purchase of food for the use of consumption.
Hans: Yes.
Next Message by Cmanson is [709].
[712] Ghant: Advancing Money: Stocks, bonds, limited partnerships, distributors. These
are examples of what you do with your money when you want to sell the item again in the
future, for more than you bought it. This is also known as speculation, although I personally
believe that these are very productive and efficient mechanisms in our society.
Hans: Not all of it is speculation.
Expending Money: purchase and comsumption of food, clothing, transportation, entertainment,
etc. These are some examples of expenses for comsumption, or to use Marxian
terminology, purchasing commodities with the intention of consuming all the use-value from
a product. In other words, when you are finished with it, it will either no longer exist (as in
the case of food) or be so used as to be useless to any one else (as in the case of clothing). I
have a question, where does Marx place owned housing? We don’t buy it to resell it, but to
use it. However, in the U.S. it’s treated as an investment because of the resell value. How is
this reconciled?
Hans: It is a mixture. it is a place to live and also an investment, which can be liquidated to pay for the doctors
bills when you are getting old.
Next Message by Ghant is [713].
[715] Zaskar: In terms of “advancing” money, I believe that Marx is relating this attribute
of exchanging goods with the prospect of increasing gain. An example that comes to my
mind is a personal example. I have a house that I lease to tenents. My intent in purchasing the
house was to increase my wealth. Every bit of money I invest in the house is designed to keep
it in good shape so that it can continue to yield returns for me. I believe any amount of money
or goods used for the purpose of getting monetary return back fills Marx’s definition of
advancing money. “Expending” money is the use of money without the prospect of receiving
it back. I believe any type of consumption fits this description. I buy clothing to cover my
body. Although I do get value from the expenditure of this money I do not expect to yield

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 253
any direct monetary gain from buying it. Expending money seems to fit the consumption
mode better than the investment mode.
Hans: You do not get value from wearing clothes, you get use value. When you distinguish between value and use
value, the distinction between advancing and expending also gets more clear cut.
Next Message by Zaskar is [811].
[716] Titania: “Advancing” money and commodites means that I intend to get the money
or goods back at a later time. I am merely “lending” the items (meaning if fully intend to get
the same thing or better back at a later date.) “Expending” money, on the other hand, means
that I am spending this money to sustain/enrich some part of my life. I have no intention
of getting this money back because I am using the resource fully. I cannot expect to get
any money back because I have nothing left of the product to exchange/sell. EXAMPLES
Advancing: I own a shoe store and buy 8 pairs of shoes. I expact to get the money back on
these shoes (if not more) by selling these shoes to customers. Expending: I pay rent for my
apartment. I do not expect to be able to get any of that money back because I am depleting
the good I purchased (the use of my apartment for one month.) Similarly with clothing,
when I buy a pair of pants, I do not expect to get any money from the pants at a later date
because I plan to use them until they fall apart.
Hans: Yes.
Next Message by Titania is [813].
[726] Braydon: The equation c-m-c refers to expending money and that is where something
is bought not to be resold. Necessary items we use daily would be an example of
expending money, food, clothing, household items. Rent for apartments or houses would be,
but not necessarily a house payment because the house will soon be ours and could be considered
an “asset”, that could be used like money. The equation m-c-m refers to advancing
money. Real estate could be used as an example. My father dabbled a little in this when I
was young. He would buy and sell houses or property for gain. Investing could also be used.
Buying stocks in companies to later sell for profit.
Hans: yes.
Next Message by Braydon is [770].
[737] Yoda: From what I understand about Marx’s definition of “advancing” money, he
says that it is letting your money go with the understanding and intention on getting the
money back through ventures. I suppose I could give many different examples of this concept.
My grandparents are fruit farmers in a town north of Salt Lake. They spend thousands
of dollars a year preparing the orchards for harvesting. During the summer, the fruit is harvested
from the trees and sold to huge companies such as Smuckers and Beatrice Foods Inc.
These companies in turn pay market value for the fruit. The money that is left over after all
the bills are paid is their profit. According to Marx, “expending” money means that money
is let go with no intentions on seeing it again. After three years of economic courses, this
appears to be what is meant by consumption. When we buy commodities like food and entertainment,
the money is spent and will never be seen again. We let go of the money for
enjoyment or pleasure. After the enjoyment is over, our money is gone.
Hans: Yes.
Next Message by Yoda is [798].
[738] Sms: Question 197: Advancing money is the purchase of commodities which hold
some type of financial claim. An example of this is the purchase of investment properties
254 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
such as resort homes, etc. whith the idea that the value of the commodity will increase or
can be used to create new capital. Stocks, bonds, and CDs are all commodities which can be
considered advancing money. Expending money on the other hand, is the purchase or trade
of commodities that are consumed, and hold no financial claims in the long-run. Examples
of expending money would be the purchase of food, gas, and perhaps clothing.
Hans: Right.
Next Message by Sms is [885].
[741] Ida: An example for “advancing” money may be purchasing tires from a discount
warehouse for, let’s say $100.00. Then, turning around and selling those tires to someone
else for, let’s say $150.00. The idea of “advancing” is to make some type of profit. Another
example may be a retail clothing outlet, or any other type of merchant selling goods. These
merchants will purchase items from a wholeseller at a discounted rate. The merchants will
then take this merchandise back to their own outlet and sell the merchandise for a higher
price making them a profit. This profit will pay for overhead etc, and supply additional
income to the owner. The idea of “advancing” is solely for a profit, such as buying more
money with money. M-C-M. An example for “expending” money would be purchasing
those same tires from the discount warehouse for $100.00 and using them on one’s own
automobile. Therefore, for one’s own personal use with no desire to receive any further
funds from the tires. This reflects trading one’s money for a commodity. M-C......
Hans: Ok.
Next Message by Ida is [799].
[744] Marinda: Expenditure is spending to acquire use-values which are then used up,
such as groceries, cars, clothes, etc. (C-M-C) Advancing is investment in order to make more
money, such as buying a shop, equipment and labor. It is not the nature of the use-value that
makes the difference, because a car and clothes can be investments under some conditions,
not just expenditures, because they can be necessary in order to make more money.
Hans: Ok.
Next Message by Marinda is [760].
[745] Nena: The difference between “advancing” and “expending” money is: when you
buy something in order to resell it, the sum employed here is called the money advanced;
when you buy some thing and the aim isn’t to resell it, the sum employed here is called the
money expended. For example, if you open a supermarket, and you bought the inventory of
meat, fish, cane, vegetables...., and so on, in order to resell them to your customers and make
money (profit), the sum of the money you used to buy these things is called the advancing
money. On the other hand, if you are a housewife, and you went shopping at supermarket
and bought those meat, fish, cane, vegeatbles..., and so on, in order to “feed” your families,
the sum of money you used to buy these things is called the expending money. So, can we
say that the sum used to buy stocks and bonds in order to resell them and gain profits is
advancing money? And, dose the expending money mean that we have to tranfer the money
into some “use value” (commodities)?
Hans: If you give it to a swindler and get nothing in return, I would also consider this as a kind of “expending”.
Next Message by Nena is [810].
[748] Johny: Advancing money is when something is bought in order to be sold again. A
good example of this is the stock market. A person invests in the stock market in order to
sell this stock again. A perfect example of buying something in order to be sold again. This

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 255
is more like an investment. Expending money is something that is bought that is not meant
to be sold. An example of this is food. We do not buy food to sell it again. We buy food in
order to eat it and stay alive.
Hans: Ok.
Next Message by Johny is [750].
[754] Chp: An example of expending money is illustrated by most manufacturing companies.
Most manufacturing companies invest money in raw materials, machinery, land, etc.
in order to produce an item to sell that would recover not only the money that was used to
produce the item, but also to cover the ongoing expenses the company incurs by continued
production of items and growth.
Hans: This is not the right meaning of “expend”
An example of advancing money occurs when a distributor purchases items from a manufacturer
and sells those items to the final consumer thus recovering his initial investment and
more often than not charging an extra amount that he feels he is justified to for facilitating
the exchange.
Hans: Ok.
Next Message by Chp is [792].
[755] Sprewell: Money is advanced when a commodity is purchased with the intent of
reselling it for a profit. Retail stores are a good example of this. They purchase goods from
the producers and then sell them to the consumer at a higher price. This follows the form M-
C-M, “the transformation of money into commodities, and the reconversion of commodities
into money”. Using the example of the retail store, money is expended when the consumer
purchases goods from the store with the intent of consuming them. Items such as food,
gasoline, or soap are purchased, used up, and are not resold. This follows the form C-
M-C, “the transformation of commodities into money and the reconversion of money into
commodities”.
Hans: Ok.
Next Message by Sprewell is [836].
[756] Sammy: I just happen to be holding one of my paycheck stubs and it has a fine
example of advancing money. It shows that my employer advanced my fifty dollars. This
means I was paid fifty dollars before I earned it. However, as soon as I have earned fifty
dollars they will expect me to return the funds they let me use.
Hans: Apparently even after you have performed the work you still don’t think you earned the money because the
employer has not yet sold the product. But if you would have to wait this long, you should get the full value which
you produced during the day, not just a subsistence wage.
Expending money is different. A month or so ago, the firm I work for expended a sum
of money to provide dinner for it’s employees. The employees were not asked to pay for
the dinner, during the dinner or after. The firm expended the amount of money to show it’s
appreciation to the employees.
Hans: They considered it an advance in the goodwill of their employees. They thought: let’s spend a little of the
surplus value which we get from them on them, so that thy won’t resist being expolited in the future.
To summarize, advancing is like loaning, money is given out with the understanding that
it will be returned at a later time. Expending, on the other hand is exchanging money for
something else, it may be food, entertainment, or the like. The important difference is that
expending money is giving it up permanently, and advancing is just temporary.
256 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
Next Message by Sammy is [822].
[851] Oregon: Advancing money would be when something is bought in order to be
sold again. Expending money would be when something is bought not to be sold again.
Something that is bought to be the end. Advancing would be givin in the formula as M-C-
M, and expending would be C-M-C.
Hans: Ok.
Next Message by Oregon is [852].
[921] Marlin: Advancing money- any market that deals with a middle man or an intermediate
good. Distributors are perfect examples. They purchase goods from the manufacturer
and sell them to retailers. Then another act of advancing comes with the purchase by the retailer
from the distributor. This is actually a chain of advancing money. Expending money is
something that we do daily. Whether it is going out to lunch, grocery shopping, or shopping
for pleasure just to name a few. If I were to purchase a gift for you, would that be expending
or advancing money? I believe that since I would be the last person exchanging money for it
that it would be expending. Unless of course you did not like it and turned around and sold
it.
Hans: Ok.
Next Message by Marlin is [926].
[961] Hippie: There are many examples for advancing and expending money. Most
people engage in both activities every day. An example of advancing money would be when
I go to an auction and buy a used tractor for 500 dollars. I am the only one at the auction who
knows that the tractor is actually worth 1000 dollars. I live in an apartment so I really have
no need for the tractor, I just put it in the paper for 900 dollars and quickly make my money
and 400 dollars back. The tractor was purchased for the sole purpose of resale. Expending
money is when I decide that I am tired of sleeping on the sofa, and go to the store to buy a
bed. I have no plans for the bed other than to sleep in it. It will be worth virtually nothing
when I am done with it and I didn’t gain money through its acquisition. This is expending
money for something that is bought not to be sold.
Hans: Ok.
Next Message by Hippie is [964].
[975] Deadhead: Some example of advancing money would be people such as drug
dealers, scalpers, and real estate prospectors. The drug dealers purchase large quantities
of drugs in order to sell them in smaller amounts at higher prices in order to earn a profit.
Scalpers buy concert tickets with the intent of selling them to ticketless concert goers at
inflated prices thus earning profits. Real estate prospectors purchase land in hopes that the
value will increase and they can earn a profit by selling the land at the higher prices in the
future. Examples of expending money would be things such as a family buying food or a
new T.V., a student buying school supplies, or person buying clothes. In any such case the
person buying the commodity is buying it for their own consumption and not to resell it at a
later time for profits.
Hans: Ok.
Next Message by Deadhead is [976].
[997] Ledzep: In the text Marx describes the process by which money can be converted
back into money, and how money can simply be turned into commodities. The first process
is called the advancing of money and is discribed as follows. An individual can use

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 257
his/her money to buy commodities, say from a wholesaler, then turn around to the public
and sell the commodities at a higher price, thus going from money to commodity, back to
money. Hopefully, at least for the capitalist/entrepreneur, he/she made a profit so he/she
can go through the whole process again. The second process is simply that of expending
money. In this example, the main idea is that of consuming. When one expends money,
he/she is simply purchasing to use for gratification... or survival. There is no intention to
convert the commodity back into money. One concrete example is that of purchasing food
for consumption... there is no way to recreate the money used to purchase the food because
the food has been consumed and no longer exists in a form that can be again converted into
money. However, one may argue that everything is eventually used to advance money. That
is, even though the food was consumed, the food sustains the life of the individual and the
individual can then convert himself/herself if nothing else into money. Thus the formula
could be extended in this case to m-c-life-m.
Hans: Good point, and that is a new point, too, it will give you a good grade. Just one quibble. By saying “one can
argue that,” you sound as if it were a matter of the point of view of the observer whether the worker’s life is only a
means to reproduce his labor power and make more money again, or whether the worker’s life is the final purpose.
It is the question whether the worker lives to work or works to live. This is a real difference, not just a difference
in how you look at it. And indeed, Marx says that capital turns the worker’s lives into just another phase in its own
accumulation.
Next Message by Ledzep is [998].
[1007] Slrrjk: When a person advances their money they spend it with the hope of getting
a return on their money. An example would be investing in stocks or purchasing supplies to
start your own business. In each instance the purchaser would be spending their money with
the idea that they would gain it back and hopefully profit from the expenditure. Expending
money is essentially the opposite of advancing money. When a person expends money there
is no prospect of getting it back. The money is spent in order to aquire something that can be
consumed completely and that no gain or return will come from. An example of expending
money would be buying clothes to wear or buying groceries to eat. In each case the buyer
consumes the products and does not gain any return or profit on their money. Advancing
follows the formula of M-C-M and expending follows the formula of C-M-C; each process
depends on what the purchaser’s original intent is with the money that they are spending.
Hans: Good.
Next Message by Slrrjk is [1008].
Question 198 is 216 in 1996sp, 216 in 1996ut, 233 in 1997WI, 297 in 1997sp, 286 in
1997ut, 323 in 2000fa, 342 in 2001fa, 385 in 2003fa, 440 in 2007fa, and 515 in 2011fa:
Question 198 What is capital?
[662] Civic: This is a loaded question. At first it appears that capital is money and
commodities. Two quotes which illustrate this are “Currency (!) employed in producing
articles...is capital” and “Capital is commodities” but this chapter illustrates two important
concepts and principles, M-C-M and C-M-C are both forms of trading money for commodities
and back to money and also commodities for money and back to commodities again. But
the key to this question and the chapter is the concept of what Marx calls the “valorization
of value” or the trading to get an increase or “surplus value”. Mercantilists have long used
the phrase “money which begets money” to describe this surplus value. Capital therefore is
258 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
value and valorization is the process by which value attempts to increase its magnitude. In
this valorization process we see that as long as we look at this surplus value only in circulation
this process of buying in order to sell again at a higher price is what Marx calls the
General Formula of Capital or M-C-M. The quote I like which helps illustrate what capital
is comes from Ehrbar’s annotations, “Capital is value which begets more value”.
Hans: Yes. Capital is value, obsessed with the purpose of expanding its magnitude. Your answer indirectly refers
to a dilemma which Marx addresses (also not terribly explicitly) in the last two paragraphs of the Chapter. How
can value expand its magnitude? One can see how this works with the merchant capitalist: he buys low and sells
high, and thus transfer part of society’s wealth into his pocket. But he does not generate this wealth, where does it
come from? And must a modern productive enterprise be understood in the same way? Marx states this puzzle at
length in Chapter Five, and gives its resolution in Chapter Six. We will have to discuss the content of Chapter Six
in connection with this on the list.
Next Message by Civic is [761].
[689] Vida: Capital is the self-expansion of value through ciculation or the surplus value
created through advancement.. Capital that assumes the form of money can be expressed
in the cycle - M-C-M’, where M’ is equal to M + the change in M. Therefore capital is the
increase in magnitude of M through circulation (advancement) where the commodity is the
mediator of the process.
Hans: The formula M-C-M’ does not explain how it is possible to consistently draw more value out of circulation
than one puts in. The fact that one advances the money and wants to get back more does by itself not make it
happen.
Next Message by Vida is [788].
[713] Ghant: According to Marx, capital is money (and also commodities) which are used
to facilitate transactions. The money can not be hoarded, and can not be used to purchase
consumable products. In order to be capital, the money must enter the M-C-M’ with the
purpose of returning to the original owner in a larger amount.
Hans: The thing with the returning a larger amount is quite different than what you first wrote, “facilitate transactions.”
I must tell you that Marx seems to be attacking the merchants, and due to a comment
made in 255:2/o, making an only slightly veiled attack on Jews. Was Marx anti-semitic? It
almost sounds like he was putting forth an early “Jewish Conspiracy” theory. Am I a little
over sensitive?
Hans: Marx was certainly much less sensitive in this respect than we are nowadays. He certainly meant it as a deft
joke rather than a veiled attack. And there is no conspiracy in this at all. Just as Jews are “inside” circumcised (in
the sense: you cannot see it because they are not walking around naked), so in the eyes of the capitalist a commodity
is “inside” money. And the second parallel: the commodities the capitalis buys are not only “inside” money, but
they are greedy money, money which wants to become more, and there is certainly the implication in there that
Jews are greedy. Nowadays we know better than make jokes like this.
Next Message by Ghant is [982].
[728] Telemark: An appropriate question being we are reading a critique of what it is.
In another post on this question I read capital is value. And “the valorization of value” or
getting a surplus value is how value gets more value. Yet this doesn’t seem so bad, if capital
is value. So why did Marx have to write a critique on it. I will have more to say on capital
being value. But, first I feel it leaves out the reason that this valorization is so pitiful. Usury
is what brings the arrow to the heart. The argument vs capital and capitalism is not because
capital is value nor is it a simple question on increase of value, although it is a very important
part and does include it. Usury or the mechanism by which this valorization takes place is

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 259
why we are critiquing Capital. How and why this value gets more value. I believe usury was
illegal up until the last few centuries. This exploitation of others, making more, focuses on
the capitalist, this is his/her niche. They think, act and work to take advantage of ALL others.
M-C-M denotes this valorization or usury. There is nothing wrong with value (capital), but
the value in the hands of the capitalist becomes a game of losers for all. For we can only stab
each other in the back so many times before there aren’t many others to stab. So to keep it
simple, yes capital is value and the valorization of value is the process by which value gets a
surplus value and surplus value comes to be by the exploitation of others. It coming together
and is much easier to understand. Thanks
Hans: Criticizing usury without criticizing capitalism is like criticizing barking without criticizing dogs. Marx
tries to show that the concept of value already has all those abuses in it. If you want to get rid of these abuses you
must get rid of value itelf.
Next Message by Telemark is [790].
[731] Deadhead: Capital is money “that is advanced in order to recieve a larger amount,
the original capital plus an increment, in return.” Once the cycle M-C-M’ is completed, M’
representing the new capital M+increment, the capital is again advanced in order to further
the valorization of the original capital and earn more profit.
Hans: Good point: it is not just the one-time profit but the continuous making profit again and again.
Next Message by Deadhead is [732].
[734] Oj: Capital is money, it is circulated through society from the producer to the buyer.
Capital makes it possible to trade and sale commodities. Capital is power, if someone has
quite a bit of money they are considered priviledged compared to those without it. Systems
of labor are produced to create capital. Car manufactures arrange assembly lines in order
to produce and sale cars as fast as possible in order to increase the magnitude of capital.
Capitals main purpose is dealing with the buying and selling of commodities. If there was
no such thing as capital, it would be very difficult to run a trade system. Capital is many
things, it is very difficult to give a clear and precise definition. Capital is one of the driving
forces of the world. Without it who knows were society would be.
Hans: I was asking here about Marx’s definition of capital.
Next Message by Oj is [735].
[736] Vansmack: Capital’s definition can be analyzed in many different ways. My view
is that capital is not only money but anything that is of value to society. capital is the gain of
anyone. while money is an important part of capital it is not the only part. Money needs to
be of worth to be a form of capital. If you are running a good business your capital should
exceed anything else no matter what that form of capital may be. Capital could be many
different things. I think that capital could even be classified in trems of war gains when it is
dealt with governments. The more land, power, and respect a country gains the more capital
the country gains in the war.
Hans: Stop brainstorming and work through the assigned readings!
Next Message by Vansmack is [740].
[746] Chance: This question has raised some interesting insights and thoughts. I believe
Marx is trying to say that capital is actually a constant strive towards an increase in value. A
merchant who buys low and sells high has an increase in value, thus capital. Ehrbar further illustrates
Marx’s point by saying that value assumes the form of money and commodities and
changes its own magnitude (valorization). For the most part, I agree with that of civic in that
260 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
value is the real issue behind capital. However, I do question one underlying assumption–
that of capital independently valorizing itself. In order for the merchant to have an increase
in value (capital), he had to take a risk. He bought a commodity at a certain price with the
intention to sell at a higher price. If the commodity could only be sold at a lower price, then
he lost money – or in other words, capital had a decrease in value. Does this reverse hold
true? (Capital can also independently de-valorize itself). I do not believe so. I believe that
the merchant is responsible for the increase (or decrease) in value. He is responsible for the
risk he takes or doesn’t take which directly affects the value (capital). For example, if I have
$100 and stuff it under my mattress, will it independently valorize itself? Will it increase in
value? Even if inflation were not a factor, if it were constant, the value of my $100 under
the mattress will not increase. (With inflation, the value will actually decrease because the
buying power will decrease). However, if I invest the $100 in a commodity and resale the
commodity for $120, does this mean that the capital independently increased in value? I
say no – it was the risk I took by investing the $100 that actually increased the value. Am I
misunderstanding Marx’s idea, or do I just disagree with his conclusion?
Hans: Marx would agree that capitalists bear risks and also perform labor, but would say: what increased the value
from $100 to $110 is not the labor and the risk of the capitalist but the unpaid labor of some productive laborer. A
burglar incurs risks and performs labor too, burglary is skilled labor, but this risk and this labor is not what created
the merchandise which he is carrying away.
Next Message by Chance is [793].
[749] Leo: When I think of Capital, I don’t really associate it with exchange of commodities.
I think of it as aquired commodities. A persons capital might be their homes, car, truck,
boat or business.
Hans: This class is a close reading of a book whose title is “Capital.”
Next Message by Leo is [751].
[750] Johny: As stated by Marx, capital is commodities, and capital is money. In general,
capital is a stock of accumulated good which may be devoted to the to the production of
other goods, the value of the accumulated goods, and possessions which hope to bring in
income.
Hans: Here your very last phrase: “which hope to bring in income” is a crucial part of the definition. It is not just
a hope, it must bring income. Capital must accumulate just as a dog must bark.
Next Message by Johny is [826].
[758] Eagle: From what I can get from Marx, he is saying that capital is value, be it the
value of money, commodities, etc.
Hans: This is like saying: teachers are people. It is a true statement about teachers but not the whole definition of
a teacher.
(datestring)Wed, 15 Mar 1995 06:41:04 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) After reading further,
I believe Marx is saying that capital also the machinery in a company’s possession as well
as the labor-power used to operate those machines. In this sense, capital does have value.
Hans: This is still not the definition of capital.
Next Message by Eagle is [842].
[759] Allison: As outlined in the annotations, capital is value, moving value, continually
advancing towards self valorization, passing through the forms of Money - Commodity -
Money - Commodity........perpetually. Feasting on the limitless broad expanse of use-values

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 261
yet bridled by its quantitative limitations, this value whether in the form of money or commodity,
is incessantly attempting to expand its quantitative boundaries. Systematically redefining
itself as surplus value is acquired and immediately pooled together with the overall
growing value. This self-multiplying value is capital. The expansion derived from one m-cm
transaction is never the end but serves as the beginning to a continual repetition of its own
turnover...never fulfilled with a quantitative difference, the value is, as stated in the book,
insatiable, always hungry for more.
Hans, One day, while in the union building I overheard a conversation between two university
employees. Apparently one had formerly held a job which, over time, had payed him
as much as 60,000 dollars a year. It was obvious that he was only making small fraction of
that in his current capacity working for the U. As I listened to these two gentlemen talk, it
was clear that this former job had increasingly payed this man more and more each year and
ultimately after having reached 60,000 a year he quit and left the position. The other worker
asked the man, in a surprised tone of voice, “Why would you possibly want to leave a job
that was paying you that kind of money???!!” To which he replied, no matter how much you
make you are never happy and always want more. I have never been able to forget that, and
as I read these annotations and began to gain a minute understanding of the monstrous power
of capital and its insatiable desire to grow–I couldn’t help but think of that man...This really
is not part of my answer, but I wanted to get your feedback on the experience as it relates
to Marx’s views and maybe your own. If you are too busy, understood....just curious if this
attitude correlates with Marx’s criticism.
Hans: Yes, this is an important point. In my view one has to distinguish between two kinds of deprivation and
exploitation, I will call them for the purposes of this discussion type (A) and type (B).
Type (A): one is deprived of food, housing, medical care, education, and condemned to live in a crime-ridden
area.
Type (B): one’s life is humiliatingly modest compared to what one knows would be possible given modern
technology, and also compared to the material comforts available by those around one who have sold their souls to
the capitalist system — but still in absolute terms one does not really lack anything important.
My hypothesis is that in a type (B) situation, alienation rather than exploitation proper becomes the more
pressing issue, and if I understand the commodity fetishism section correctly, alienation is also the more basic
issue. This was part of my thinking behind Question 141. What does it matter whether exploitation follows from
alienation, or alienation follows from exploitation?
I want to put this to the List: what do you think about the distinction type (A) versus type (B) deprivation?
Next Message by Allison is [819].
[1004] Slrrjk: Capital according to Marx is value that is increased by the process of self
valorization. In your annotations you say that “capital is value which begets more value”.
With capital in the form of money for instance, money is advanced to receive a larger amount
of money and when the process is completed it begins again. The process follows the formula
of M-C-M. Once money is converted into a commodity and then back into money again
the new (and increased amount of) money is advanced again and the process continues indefinitely.
So in a sense capital is value in motion, moving by the means of self valorization.
Capital is value which by its nature accumulates more value.
Hans: Value in motion: very good metaphor.
Next Message by Slrrjk is [1005].
[1014] Mikey: The accumulation of wealth or value. That is or can be used to gain more
wealth and value.
262 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
Hans: Instead of “is” or “can be”, you should say “is intended to be”. Such an intention or inner tendency is a
legitimate way to define something. Capital must accumulate just as dogs must bark.
Next Message by Mikey is [1015].
[1027] Renegade: Capital is value capable of expanding. It is like a goose capable of
laying golden eggs!
Hans: Not just capable, but this is also what it must do.
Next Message by Renegade is [1028].
Question 199 is 189 in 1995ut, 224 in 1996sp, 305 in 1997sp, 294 in 1997ut, and 454 in
2007SP:
Question 199 Which other form does capital have besides money, and what distinguishes
the money form from the other form?
[684] Darci: The other form of capital is commodity. On page 156, paragraph one, Marx
says, “the capitalist knows that all commodities, however tattered they may look, or however
badly they may smell are in faith and in truth money...a wonderful means for making still
more money out of money.” This indicates that capital (money) must be transformed into
commodity and then transformed back into money to make it capital. This fits when you
look at “all” the commodities “for sale” in the U.S. It appears that the “capitalist” is addicted
to the cycle of buying and selling. He seems to be like the hunter, always looking for prey of
some sort and the motivation is “going in for the kill” or in this case the sell, which would
explain why entrepreneurs are willing to make and lose fortunes.
Hans: First I want to say something about the translation in the Vintage edition. The phrase “a wonderful means
for making more money out of money” means (and correct me if i am wrong, English is not my native language)
that it is a very appropriate, smoothly functioning, prolific means. The German counterpart would be “wunderbar”.
However this is not what Marx wrote. He used the word “wundertaetig”, i.e., miraculous, a word which very clearly
indicates not only general approval and marvel but that the effect is brought about in a miraculous, mysterious way.
Marx is saying something important here, and the English translation makes it impossible to discern this. (By
the way, the French translation is not any better: it uses the word “merveilleux”). As you point out very will,
the capitalist sees himself as a “hunter” between money and commodities – but he usually has no idea why this
“hunting” results in him ending up with more money than before.
I would like to pose this question to the class: what mechanism am I referring to which the capitalist is unaware
of? Please make submissions to the list.
By the way: Darci did not answer the last part of the question, what distinguishes the money form from the
other form? Your submissions to this question are still very welcome.
And besides: Darci had already written up answers to three questions for this Chapter before I made the announcement
that only one Question was required. She has my permission to submit these answers and gets credit
for them in future assignments. Therefore don’t get confused if you see more than one Question answered by Darci:
your assignment is to answer only one Question, but also to take part in the discussion, e.g., respond to the question
I just asked above (about the mechanism the capitalist is unaware of). And if you wait until the last minute, this
will be counted against you.
(datestring)Sun, 12 Feb 1995 10:35:53 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) Thanks for the additional
insight, language seems to be a problem when trying to translate other languages into
Engligh, there doesn’t seem to be enough words or the right ones. I am unclear about the
mechanism and also a little unclear about the last part of this question. If I am understanding
correctly, I think the distinction between the money part and the commodity part is the use
value. The use value for money in the first part is to exchange for the commodity is in the
second part which he intends to exchange for “commodity” money (money for money) in

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 263
the third part so that the cycle can begin again. I will have to think a little more about the
mechanism.
Hans: I asked Question 199 because money has a special role to play in the self-expansion of capital. In a moneyless
barter society, capitalism would not be possible. Why not?
I have been thinking about this question and a thought occurred to me. It seems that
it is being implied that the dollar(money) amount coming out of the economy is the same
amount going back into the economy. If this is so profit would easily be determined by the
exploitation of the worker. But this does not explain the creation of money (done by the
government). Please clarify.
Hans: I don’t quite get your point, but the argument is much more abstract. In 255:2/o Marx says that money is
the form in which the value which goes through all these different use values “asserts its identity with itself”. Only
because of the money does one know that the value is driving all this, and does one know how much it has grown.
Next Message by Darci is [685].
[733] Scarlett: The form of capital that is not money is in the form of commodities.
The difference between the two is in the goals of the exchange. While money is exchanged
for commodities which are then re-sold for a larger sum of money than the original (in the
exchange M-C-M’). In this situation, the money is advanced, in order to be recovered. The
commodity as a form of capital, on the other hand, is sold for money, which in turn is used to
buy a different commodity (C-M-C). In this case, the final commodity is consumed, rather
than being re-circulated.
Hans: The commodity which goes through C-M-C is not capital. Not all commodities are capital.
(datestring)Fri, 17 Feb 1995 09:08:47 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) So is it only the C in
M-C-M’ that is capital because it is exchanged back for money?
Hans: Yes. It is not directly consumed by the owner, and it is also not traded for something to be consumed by the
owner.
Next Message by Scarlett is [834].
[735] Oj: The other form of capital is commodity. Money is only the starting point for
capital. In order for money to take the form of capital it must take some form of commodity.
Capital feeds off of commodity, without commodity it would be impossible to circulate
capital throughout society. Money itself has no value of use. However commodities, such
as cars, homes, shoes, all have a form of use value. The money is used to buy and sell the
commodities, however commodities are on a supply and demand system while money has
no use value. This is the distinction between the two forms of capital.
Hans: Yes. But there is an importan other property that also distinguishes the money form.
Next Message by Oj is [739].
[740] Vansmack: The other form that capital has besides money is the commodity form
which is interesting when rlated to money because money itself is actually really just a
commodity. Without the commodity value added to it, money would be usefull only if you
were fond of looking at green paintings of some of the nations’s presidents. Money itself
has no use-value until it is actually tieds in with the commodity. This is a unique principle
that can be exclusive with only currency. Money does make capital run, but capital makes
money run.
Hans: Under the gold standard, money is a commodity but not “just a commodity.” The money commodity is not
green paintings but gold. I think in your last sentence you want to say: money does not make capital run but capital
makes money run. I agree with the thrust of it; the fuel which makes capital “run” is the commodity labor power.
Next Message by Vansmack is [742].
264 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
[804] Golfer: The other form of capital besides money is a commodity. This is a result
of money being exchanged for a commodity and then a commodity being exchanged for
money. I believe this indicates that money and commodities are the two forms of capitalism.
The money form has an easier exchange value than the commodity. This is due, to the fact,
that money is more readily accepted because it can be exchanged for any commodity, rather
than a commodity that must be exchanged for something the owner and seller both want.
Hans: You explained why money is so important for circulation in general, but not why money is so important for
capital is particular. Marx has specific reasons for that.
(datestring)Wed, 15 Mar 1995 16:07:46 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) Money is a form of a
commodity, the second form is that a commodity is a form of money. I believe this means
that money makes commodities, and commodities make money.
Hans: You are referring to the Grundrisse quote “in the first (namely in C-M-C), money is the form of a commodity,
in the second (namely in M-C-M), commodity is a form of money.” But you are not interpreting it right.
Next Message by Golfer is [807].
[866] Makarios: Capital can exist in the form of commodities as well as money, as they
are both “modes of existence” for value. What distinguishes the two is that money is the
generalized form, and the commodity is the specific form. Capital is usually interpreted as
being money, but because both commodities and money are both expression of the same
thing (value), in terms of capital, money equals commodities. Also, commodities may take
on qualitative as well as quantitative aspects, whereas money can only take on quantitative
aspects.
Hans: Good.
Next Message by Makarios is [867].
[981] Hippie: Although money is the most basic form of capital, commodities can briefly
take on the form of capital. In the form C-M-C, the second part of the transaction is trading
money(capital) for another commodity. WHat started as your commodity now turned into
capital. (Until you exchange it for another commodity).
Hans: The M in C-M-C is not capital. The purpose of C-M-C is not to make more money, but to turn one use value
into another.
Money as capital is distiguished from commodities as capital in that money exchanged
into commodities will return as more money, thus the capital regenerates itself. Commodities
as capital must be constantly replenished, as commodities will theoretically always end up
as other commodities.
Hans: What you call “commodities as capital” is value which is not capital. Commodities can be the form of
capital, yes they must be, because money cannot become more money if it just stays money. But the commodities
in C-M-C are not capital.
Next Message by Hippie is [999].
[1028] Renegade: Money as the means of circulation (C-M-C), is not capital since it only
circulates commodities of equal value. When money becomes capital (M-C-M’), it totally
changes its character. It is now value capable of expanding itself. Money changes form,
i.e., it is advanced to buy the means of production and labor power which subsequently are
engaged in the process of production (productive capital). It is in this process that the surplus
value is extracted. The resulting product is commodity capital. Capital at this stage takes
the form of a commodity. It is then sold and the value is transformed back into the money
form to start a new cycle. One should notice that it is only when the commodity is sold that

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 265
the labor congealed in it becomes socially necessary labor. Therefore, capital in its circular
flow takes different forms–money capital, productive capital, and commodity capital. The
surplus value is extracted in the production process and is realized when the commodity is
sold. This is how capital expands.
Hans: Ok.
Next Message by Renegade is [1030].
Question 200 is 186 in 1995ut, 221 in 1996sp, 221 in 1996ut, 238 in 1997WI, and 291 in
1997ut:
Question 200 Discuss the social role of the capitalist. What role does greed play in capitalism?
[685] Darci: The social role of the capitalist is that of supplier. He looks for a commodity
he can purchase and then sell for money. In reference to question 199, Marx says he is
looking for a commodity to transform into more money. He supplies goods and services
as a means of gaining more goods and services (which is why I am working). Greed is a
powerful motivator. Again referring back to the quote I used in question 199, it makes more
money. A drug dealer would be a good example of greed in action. He has a product (for my
purposes a “smelly,” horrible, commodity) and without concern for anything but profit, sells
it for incredible exchange value because of its magnitude of use value to the addict. Marx
does not say that the capitalist has a moral obligation to society. So a question I have is is
should there be and if so how would it work?
Hans: isn’t it odd that you call someone whose declared objective is to “make a killing”, to take home more at the
end of the day than he brought at the beginning – you don’t call him a robber but you call him a supplier.
And I also have quarrels with your example of the addict. The capitalist not only supplies the needs of the
addicts, the cigarette industry with its advertisement and other tricks also creates the addicts. i want to make
the point that the consumer is not king, but the needs of the consumer are manipulated for the benefit of the
accumulation of capital.
Your question about the moral obligation can perhaps be answered better when we know better about the
mechanisms which enable the capitalist to consistently take home more value than he puts in, i.e., the question I
asked the class when I sent you Darci’s answer to Question 199.
(datestring)Sun, 12 Feb 1995 10:45:49 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) I agree with the analyses
that capitalist create the consumer, I apparently did not clarify this part of my analyses.
But I disagree with the robber analyses according to my definition of robber for the majority
of capitalists. A robber to me is someone who takes something from someone unwillingly.
It seems to me that the consumer is willing to make the exchange and that doesn’t fit my
definition. In the addicts case, he has willingly made the choice to participate in this activity
by trying the drug (I include alcohol, and tobacco in this case). There is enough information
out there for individuals to make those types of choices. And again it goes back to my question
about moral obligation because there are other items in the market that create addiction,
again for the capitalist it is money and he supplies what is in demand. Please clarify if I am
on the right track.
Hans: First about the addicts: ultimately they could “just say no” but there is peer pressure (and often more than
pressure but outright coercion), there is very sophisticated advertising, and the cigarette companies make it very
easy for teenagers to get their hands on cigarettes because they know that someone who starts smoking as a teenager
will have a terribly hard time getting off it again. It is no longer free choice.
266 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
Now about the “voluntary” exchange between worker and capitalist: the worker needs a job otherwise he would
starve because the capitalists monopolize all the means of production, i.e., the workers do not have access to the
means or production unless they allow themselves to be exploited by the capitalists. This separation, that all the
means of production are in private hands and not in the hands of the producers, is the involuntary part of it.
(datestring)Tue, 14 Feb 1995 17:47:10 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) Thank you, I think I
am beginning to understand. This question has to do with exploitation and the involuntary
involvement of the masses as workers and their lack of power to inject their will in the
market as effectively as the owners, who graciously allow people to work. Greed on the part
of the owners allow them to exploit the worker without guilt and a certain part of despair
and resolution to the workers fate is the mechanism which allows this to occur.
Next Message by Darci is [764].
[732] Deadhead: The social role of a capitalist is to advance his money in order to
hopefully earn a profit. The capitalists investments drive the forces of production in order
to produce commodities to be sold to the public. This impacts society in two ways. First
it provides jobs in production , and secondly it provide a wide variety od commodities fro
the employees to spend their newly earned wages on. The ultimate goal of a capitalist is
to ever increas the amount of capital (money) he or she controls. Greed drives capitalist to
constantly develop new ways of increasing their capital. Capitalists drive to increase their
personal wealth results in continued investment that keeps money in circulation and makes
the wheels of economy turn.
Hans: Even a capitalist who is not greedy must act pretty much the same as a greedy capitalist if he is to remain a
capitalist. This is why Marx contends that capitalism is not driven by the greed of the capitalists.
Next Message by Deadhead is [855].
[739] Oj: The social role of a capitalist is a money owner who thrives on making a
financial profit. His role is to produce jobs, thus the system turns into a hierarchy with him
at the top making his proprietorship making him competitive in the market. He wants to
make a profit, it doesn’t have to be all at once, but in the overall outlook he would like to
come out on top financially. Greed can possess a capitalist to want to much at one time. The
valorization of value and the use value should not be an immediate concern. However, if a
capitalist starts thinking about the size of his wallet then it is possible that he will prioritize
everything all at once and bust.
Hans: Good point. Greed alone won’t make things happen; it can rather be an obstacle.
Next Message by Oj is [794].
[742] Vansmack: While capitalism in theory is supposed to make an equal chance for all
members in society to gain capital, it usually doesn’t work that way in the end. The capitalist
usually gets a business and takes a leadership role, a hierarchal order usually follows. This
can actually develop into quite a caste system which then will have social ratifications. Greed
will almost always play a part in the process. While everyone has theri function in the certain
capitalist business not everyone ends up with the wealth. We are human so greed will play a
role in the production of capitalism making capitalists thirsty for not only more money, but
also more business and commodities.
Hans: At the beginning, your mistaken theoretical notions about capital show through (mistaken in terms of Marx’s
theory, which is what we are discussing here), but I like your comparison with thirst at the end. Capital is thirsty
value, and the capitalist is the one who makes sure it gets to drink.
Next Message by Vansmack is [805].

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 267
[757] Stxian: The social role of the capitalist is generally percived as bad among most
Marxist, because the belief that capitalist are out there to make profit and gain wealth for
themselves only, and without any regard or concern on his/her worker and the environments.
To this point, I agree, because it’s true that capitalist are out there seeking more money for
themselves and greedy drives them to a point of no return. Personally, I don’t like capitalists
at all, they don’t contribute anything valueable to society except creating “few jobs” in the
name of capitalist production and profit maximization. I know that society can no longer
withheld and torrent big capitalist production without regard to the environment, already
very scarace raw materials and resources, and to the future. In current society, capitalism
is advanced to a stage beyond Marx’s analysis, Capitalist will always continue to manipulate
and use the least costly way to achieve their wealth accumulation and achieve their
objectives. Greed is the sole driving force behind capitalistic developments and expansion,
backed by the desire of more wealth, and the ideaology of “money is never enough”. Greed
will certainly expand production but in the main time, it also stick inside of every capitalist’s
mind that he has to limit wage and at the expense of others that he can only beat the other
guy and gain more wealth. Greed also partially creates social problem for the society as a
whole.
Hans: What you call “greed” is not a psychological human flaw, but it is a social force, the necessity to accumulate,
which is embedded in the structure of capitalist relations of production.
Next Message by Stxian is [825].
[763] Tsunami: The social role of the capitalist is as both consumer and supplier. The
capitalists must consume what they supply in order to amass even more.
Hans: I don’t get how you mean this.
Capitalism compels the capitalists to keep extending their capital, so as to preserve it, and
they can only extend it by means of progressive accumulation (Marx, p. 739). Their social
role, then, is the enslavement of the human race into the production for production’s sake.
Hans: As your write yourself, they are compelled by capitalism to do this. Therefore do not describe the individual
capitalists as the ones who enslave the human race. On p. R990 (Which is not Capital but a draft chapter which was
not included in the final edition), Marx writes: “The capitalist is just as enslaved by the relationships of capitalism
as his opposite pole, the worker, albeit in a quite different manner.”
Furthermore, the capitalist wills the division of surplus-value into capital and revenue.
This is where greed plays a lead role in capitalism: the part of the surplus-value which the
capitalists accumulate is saved by them, and used to enrich themselves. The capitalist is
greedy for this reason: in order to amass more “stuff,” the capitalist must throw his or her
money into circulation and then draw more out than he or she originally threw in, which
means someone will be withdrawing less money than they originally put in. I guess there’s
nothing wrong with losing money if you’re playing poker and you know what the stakes are,
but what if the losers don’t even know that they are being suckered? The capitalist is greedy
because he or she knows that someone is getting gipped, and because they don’t care.
Hans: Here you are again contradicting yourself. If the losers don’t know that they are being suckered, then the
probably also don’t know that “someone is getting gipped”. So you allow the losers not to see this, but not the
capitalists?
(datestring)Tue, 21 Feb 1995 18:28:40 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) [You wrote that] I shouldn’t
make things out like capitalists are all evil and all proletariats (the losers) are innocent and
naive because that just isn’t the way it is, however, I think that capitalists benefit a great deal
268 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
if the masses are kept ignorant that they are being exploited–no doubt big business owners
breathed much easier at night once blame for the great depression was vented out towards
the Japanese and the Germans during WW2.
Hans: Don’t get me wrong: I am all in favor of explaining to the workers that and how they are being exploited.
Indeed, any correct knowledge about the society we live in is “emancipatory”. But I think it is also important
for “the masses” to understand that this exploitation is not due to some personal flaws of the capitalist. It is not
the invention of the capitalist. Capitalist greed is not what drives the capitalist system. The capitalists are the
opportunists of a certain social constellation. If we want to get rid of capitalism we have to change this social
constellation; murdering individual capitalists will not do.
Many capitalists may not even realize that the worker is being exploited, certainly many
may feel that they are actually doing people a favor by employing them and providing them
with jobs. Workers themselves may feel exploited, and yet never raise their voices or wish
to disturb the status quo. Moreover, I agree with you that capitalists are just as exploited
by capitalism as the worker. It is the classic slave-master relationship where one cannot
live without the other because they have been created as bi-polar. One can’t get rid of the
capitalist without getting rid of the worker. I hope I was able to clarify my position.
Hans: One can find this bi-polarity in both situations: in the situation where one individual abuses another individually,
and in a situation in which the social structure as a whole opens up the roles of capitalists and workers,
and certain individuals will, for various reasons, take on the roles of capitalists.
(datestring)Wed, 22 Feb 1995 17:42:07 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) the bi-polar relationship
between worker and capitalist is one I find absolutely engrossing. i have a hard time
with the young socialists because i feel that such overwhelming support of unions is just
begging to replace the capitalist with the union leader–an inversion of the system the way
it currently exists, and I personally don’t believe this accomplishes anything in the long run
(we’re all dead anyways, according to Keynes). if the pendulum is to find a happy medium,
however, then it probably does need to swing clear the other way before settling in the middle.
do you agree?
Hans: Unions are necessary as a defense against capitalism. When capitalism is abolished then unions should
become superfluous as well.
Next Message by Tsunami is [783].
[778] Tuan: The social role of a capitalist is to make money for financial profit. Their role
is to be the top in financial market. They just create the job for labor to making profit but
do not care much about environment. Their concern for big profit is not right now but in the
future. Greed can posses capitalist all at once.
Hans: I respect your views, but all these questions must be seen in the context of Marx’s text.
Next Message by Tuan is [780].
[840] Stalin: I think that the capitalist would say that his social role is to provide the
working class with a job, the old trickle down theory.
Hans: What is his real social role?
As far as greed and capitolism is concerned: they are one in the same! Capitolists are
greedy they want more and more; are never satisfied with what they have, and are always
looking to be bigger and better (unless they can make a profit by liquidating).
Hans: You say capitalism is the consequence of the character weaknesses of the capitalists. This is not how Marx
explains capitalism.

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 269
Unfortunetly, I think that greed is a very human nature, and once people get a taste of it,
they like it. Greed will always be around and will always be the driving force of capitolism.
Hans: Your “critique” of capitalism leads to the implication: we may not like capitalism but it will always be
around. Marx’s critique of capitalism leads to the conclusion that capitalism is a historically temporary phenomenon.
Next Message by Stalin is [980].
[852] Oregon: Greed derives from this inhernt desire to accumulate as much capital as
possible (survival of the fittest). When one sees that he can make more money by lowering
the rate of his employees and increasing the productivity of each worker than he is a greedy
man. Greed may not derive from the desire to accumulate wealth but it is portrayed this way
in our modern day society.
Hans: Please answer the questions in the context of Marx’s text.
Next Message by Oregon is [853].
[1018] Ledzep: [Wed, 15 Mar 1995 18:39:53 -0700 (MST)] The social role of the capitalist
is to divide the surplus value. There are, however, steps before and after this division.
Without going into the process of how Marx claims the capitalist exploits the worker to gain
this surplus value, I want to address the second portion of the question, that of what role
greed plays in capitalism. In my view, greed can be a disease on both sides of the fence, to
both the worker and the capitalist. I have been employed in the last three years by two different
companies, each very large on a relative scale. One was a sweatshop with disgruntled
employees, the other, where I am presently employed, is a very nice place to work. I have
decided that the difference between the two is not just money, but respect. Both are based on
the principles of capitalism, but both are run differently. People want to feel needed. In my
present position, I have been trained extensively and feel as though I contribute to a better
working society. The owner of this privately held company is the fourth richest man in the
US. If I were to think about how much money he makes as compared to me, I could start
suffering from the effects of greed; I want what he has; He should give us more of what
he has... distribute the wealth evenly. Workers unite! WE DESERVE WHAT HE HAS...
WE GOT IT FOR HIM. I would say that greed is at the heart of Marxism. I am happy with
what I have. I am happy with financial struggles. There is a burden with wealth that not
many consider. In a realistic paradigm, I gladly accept the problems of capitalism than the
potential problems that could arise and have arisen in a Marxist society. Marxism doesn’t
seem to work. Greed is the motivator and destroyer of Marxism.
Hans: Are you saying that you are not motivated by greed, but greed is needed as a motivator?
Next Message by Ledzep is [1019].
[1030] Renegade: Capitalism is different from pre-capitalist eras in that under capitalism,
it is the self-expanding of capital regulated by the rate of profit that determines the direction
that the society takes. In pre-capitalist societies great monuments were built because
someone in a position of power wished them to be built. Under capitalism, the growth of
giant industrial complexes is subordinate to the expansion of capital. Capital has a mind
of itself and expands for the sake of expansion. The capitalist’s role in such expansion is
one of greed to accumulate wealth for the sake of accumulation. But he/she is not totally
crazy. It is the competition in the market and the rate of profit that compels the capitalist
to accumulate. If he/she does not act as a crazy and greedy capitalist to accumulate wealth,
he/she will be pushed out of the market by the forces of competition. Our society promotes
270 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
individualism and the spirit of competition. As long as people buy this “dream” there will
always be another capitalist to fill the position of the ones being pushed out of the market.
Hans: Good.
Next Message by Renegade is [1031].
Question 201 is 190 in 1995ut and 446 in 2004fa:
Question 201 What does Marx mean by: “Money does not polemicize here against commodities,
as in hoarding.”
[717] Sinbad: I believe Marx is saying that the capitalists know that money and commodities
are needed to make more money. Together, money and commodities work to become
capital. The statement, “Money does not polemicize here against commodities”, means
money cannot fight against commodities or deny them, but rather work with them to complete
the circulation and by some “miraculous means” make more money out of money.
Hans: Yes. The miser’s money says: you commodities are not really wealth. I am the only true wealth. The
capitalist knows better.
Next Message by Sinbad is [718].
[867] Makarios: Marx explains this by showing the difference between the miser and the
capitalist. The miser tries to increase value in the form of wealth by saving, or hoarding,
therby preventing the money from being converted to the commodity form and going into
circulation. The capitalist, on the other hand, increases, or tries to increase, his wealth by
putting some of it into circulation with the hopes of reaping a larger return on his investment
than the original expenditure. This, in turn, allows money and commodities, in essence, to
become one and the same.
Hans: Ok.
Next Message by Makarios is [872].
Question 202 is 209 in 1995ut, 231 in 1996sp, 231 in 1996ut, and 283 in 1997WI:
Question 202 Did the fixation of the lengh of the working day discussed in Chapter Ten
place a lid on exploitation?
[798] Yoda: I could answer this question with a yes or a no. By answering yes to this
question would show that I believe that it would place a lid on exploitation. Marx believes
that labour power is bought and sold at its value. Its value is determined by the labor-time
necessary to produce it. If it take ten hours to produce the daily means to survive for the
worker, he must work the ten hours. For some the labor time may be more or less but each
must work the hours necessary to survive. This shows that the working day is not a constant,
but a variable quantity. The working day has physical and intellectual limits. These limits
can’t go beyond certain limits. If the length of the work day is fixed, exploitation cannot take
place unless the worker is forced to work more than the fixed amount. By forcing the worker
to work more than the fixed amount, he is being exploited and the answer to the original
question would be no. In a capitalist society (at least in the United States) workers receive
extra compensation for working more than the fixed amount of labor time.
Hans: It seems you have serious misunderstandings about Marx’s theory of exploitation.
Next Message by Yoda is [801].
[838] Tsunami: The fixation of the length of the working day would appear to place a lid
on the exploitation by granting the worker some leisure time. However, because the working

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 271
day consists of the necessary labor plus the surplus labor time, workers may continue to be
exploited if their surplus labor time is lengthened. With machine technology and innovation,
the socially necessary labor time is shortened, however, the workers do not profit from their
increased productivity, as the capitalist accrues the pure profit. While the fixation of the
length of the working day at least restrains exploitation and makes living more pleasurable
for workers (I’m thinking here of the 12-hour work days for children in the early stages of
the industrial revolution), it also sets the worker up to be further exploited by the usurping
of the profits of his increased surplus labor.
Hans: Yes.
Next Message by Tsunami is [946].
[853] Oregon: No the fixation of the length of the working day did not put a lid on exploitation,
it increased it. The owners saw that a certain length of a working day would
limit the actual production of the workers. The Only way for them to make as much money
would be to decrease the average wage that each worker recieves. In addition the productivity
of each worker must be increased to make more cash. The worker thus become more
exploitated because of the shortening of the working day.
Hans: Your last sentence is only correct if the owners could not do these things before the limitation of the working
day.
Next Message by Oregon is [854].
[861] Marinda: No. Exploitation can be increased by expanding the portion of the workday
that is worked for free. This is done by squeezing down the portion worked to produce
the value equivalent to one’s wages for the whole day. This can be done by increasing
productivity per worker-hour.
Hans: Good and concise explanation.
Next Message by Marinda is [862].
[872] Makarios: Yes, it did. Recall the top of page 432, where Marx states: “we have
assumed that the mode of production is given and invariable.” The only way to increase
surplus-value, and thereby exploitation, is by lengthening the work day (absolute surplusvalue),
or by reducing the necessary labor-time (relative surplus-value). Therefore, since
relative surplus-value wasn’t covered in chapter ten, the only way to increase surplus-value
is through the lengthening of the work day, which is impossible if the length of the working
day is fixed.
Hans: You are saying: if one assumes that technology is fixed, then it does. But in the real world, technology is
not fixed.
(datestring)Tue, 28 Feb 1995 02:01:16 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) That’s what I was trying
to say when I quoted Marx’s assumption about the means of production being fixed. If
hours are fixed, how else could relative surplus-value increase except through increased
productivity via changes in technology?
Hans: You are confirming me that I understood you right. My last sentence above: “But in the real world, technology
is not fixed.” was really a question. I was asking: is there a lid on exploitation also in the real world?
(datestring)Wed, 1 Mar 1995 09:47:34 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) In that case, no there
isn’t a lid on exploitation. Firms will continually improve technology and raise worker productivity.
So, as long as capitalist forms of production are in existence, worker exploitation
is going to occur.
Hans: You mean not only to occur but also to increase. This is what it means that there is no “lid”.
272 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
Next Message by Makarios is [873].
[874] Translat: I don’t believe so. It only showed more clearly how surplus value is
derived.
Hans: I did not mean the assumption in Chapter Ten that the necessary part of the day was fixed, but the legal
limits on the working day which the workers fought for and won.
(datestring)Wed, 1 Mar 1995 07:55:28 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) Even so, explotation by
use of more technology such as the convey belt system in the ford factory which increases as
the day goes by, still works to exploit. Also, some employers put their workers on a salary
and pay no overtime, such as professors. They put in more time, but make the same pay.
Thus, the explotation continues.
Hans: Yes, machinery usually makes the day more reglemented and therefore intensifies the labor. In this way it
increases exploitation. But this is not the only way.
Next Message by Translat is [902].
[999] Hippie: No, fixing teh length of the workday doesnot put a lid on exploitation. It
is the lox wage that exploits the worker. Putting a lid on the working day simply limits the
output possible in a day, but the cheapening of the labor value contained in a commodity is
where the exploitation of the worker remains
Hans: I did not ask if it eliminated exploitation, but if it prevented exploitation from being increased.
Next Message by Hippie is [1000].
Question 203 is 210 in 1995ut, 232 in 1996sp, 232 in 1996ut, 285 in 1997WI, 350 in
1997sp, 349 in 1997ut, 359 in 1998WI, 360 in 1999SP, 472 in 2001fa, 511 in 2002fa, 529
in 2003fa, 582 in 2004fa, 535 in 2005fa, 584 in 2007SP, 591 in 2008fa, 683 in 2010fa,
703 in 2011fa, 732 in 2012fa, and 683 in Answer:
Question 203 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?
[761] Civic: Relative surplus value is a result in the change of the components of necessary
labor and surplus labor in a working day. By shortening the necessary labor, in a days time,
the result is an increase in the surplus labor of that day given the length of the day does not
change. This is referred to as relative surplus value. The constant up to this point has been
the mode of production. With this concept of relative surplus value we see that advances
in technology or modes of production will allow the same commodity to be produced with
fewer labor hours, but Marx argues that this does not mean the worker will work fewer hours,
the exploitation means the capitalist keeps the gains from this new means of production and
the working day and laborer wages do not change. Hence the capitalist strives to increase
productivity in order to increase the relative surplus value.
Hans: Yes. The term “mode of production” is used in a broader sense though: it encompasses both technological
aspects and social relations of production. You mean productivity. This is right. One can also say: necessary labor
(in the sense of: labor necessary for the reproduction of the laborer, i.e., this concept is not the same as that of
“socailly necessay labor time” to produce a given use value). Through the long Chapter Ten, Marx had always
assumed the necessary part of the working day was constant, now this necessary part is allowed to vary.
Next Message by Civic is [762].
[781] Alex: Relative Surplus Value: If one considers the length of the working to day to be
fixed at a certain length, then this length can be divided into two types of labor first the necessary
labor and second the surplus labor. If one wants to increase the surplus labor, keeping

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 273
the length of the working day constant, one must reduce the necessary labor time. By increasing
the amount of surplus labor (as a result of reducing the necessary labor) one creates
RELATIVE SURPLUS VALUE. A——-B’—B—-C Relative surplus labor is created in the
move from B to B’, cutting into the necessary labor, length A to B. (given the length of the
work day to be A to C) The new dimession spoken of is the mode of production, or the
productivity of labor. In order to reduce the necessary labor time one must either use better
equipment, or increase the productivity of labor, these things are very closely associated. If
you give a worker better equipment his/her productivity will increase. And if this happens
the necesssary labor time is reduced, and the surplus labor is increased.
Hans: Ok.
Next Message by Alex is [782].
[810] Nena: Marx argued that the relative surplus-value is the “surplus value” which arise
from the curtailment of the necessary labor time, and from the corresponding alteration in
the respective lengths of the two components of the working day. For example, given an
fixed working day length of 8 hours, and let line a—–b–c represent a fixed working day of
8 hours, and line b–c represent the length of necessary labor of 6 hours, then the relative
surplus value is determined by subtracting the necessary labor time of 6 hours (represented
by line a—–b) from the fixed working day of 8 hours (which is a given constant). Thus,
the relative surplus-value in this example is equal to 2 hours (which computed by: 8 hours
(the total working hours per working day) - 6 hours (the necessary labor time) = 2 hours
(the relative surplus-value)). Since the working day is a given constant here, if we want
to increase the relative surplus-value, the only thing we can do is to convert the necessary
labor time into surplus-value, and the only way to do it is to increase the productivity. By
implementing the new (alternative) method of production (ie., using new equipments), we
can increase the productiveness of labor, reduce the labor time socially necessary, increase
the quantity of use value, and then trade off between necessary labor time and surplus-value
( increase the surplus-value in proportion to the necessary labor time by reducing the labor
time necessary to produce the commodities).
Hans: ok.
Next Message by Nena is [814].
[822] Sammy: Surplus value is labor provided by a worker, which is above and beyond
the amount he needs to work to equal his pay. For example, A worker is paid $7.00 a day. He
must work six hours to provide that much value to his employer, however, his work day is
eight hours. Six of which cover his pay, and the extra two contribute directly to his employer,
these two hours are considered surplus value. Marx divides surplus value into two groups. 1,
absolute value, is the lengthening of the work day to create surplus value. 2, relative value,
which is creating surplus value by shortening the time needed to cover the workers pay. This
is done by increasing productivity. Up to this point, Marx held this time constant. That is
to say that surplus value could only be accomplished by extending the work day. With this
new flexibility the possibilities for surplus value increase dramatically.
Hans: ok.
Next Message by Sammy is [824].
[836] Sprewell: Surplus value is that value produced beyond the necessary labor-time.
Relative surplus value is the surplus value that arises from reducing the necessary labor-time
by altering the mode of production. This makes production possible with fewer people or in
274 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
shorter time. The new dimension that was previously treated as a constant was the mode of
production. It was thought that this was a given and that surplus value was produced only
by lengthening the duration of the labor (absolute surplus value).
Hans: ok.
Next Message by Sprewell is [837].
[841] Pegasus: There are two components of the working day. One is composed of neccessary
labor, that labor which is needed by a worker for subsistance. The other is composed
of surplus labor. This is the labor which is put into production by laborers above what is required
for their subsistance. Thus, pure “profit” for the factory owner. When you prolong
surplus labor, you shorten the time spent on neccesary labor. This alters their relative length
in relation to one another. In his discussion of relative surplus value Marx introduces a new
concept. Before, the value of a commodity was determined only by the labor put into producing
it. Now he introduces the labor that has been put into the instruments by which the
commodity is produced as an additional form which gives value to a commodity.
Hans: No, this indirect labor time was always there. Perhaps we did not stress it enough or you did not notice it.
Increase in surplus labor time will neccesarily mean reduction in the neccessary labor
time. As we get better technology or the productivity of workers increase, the balance will
shift towards more surplus labor.
Hans: ok.
Next Message by Pegasus is [849].
[855] Deadhead: Relative-surplus value is the extra value created when the amount of
necessary labor time is decreases but the same amount of goods are produced therefore the
surplus labor time is increased.this increase in surplus labor time is considered to be the
relative surplus value. The new dimension added that allows for relative surplus value is the
increased productivity of the laborers. At first we considered the necessary labor time to be
constant but by allowing it to vary, true capitalists try to decrease the amount of necessary
labor time that goes into producing each product therefore increasing total production over
a given period of time, say a day.
Hans: You seem to be confusing the concept of “socially necessary labor time” and the concept of “necessary
labor” as opposed to “surplus labor”. These are two different concepts. Please reply and give me the definitions.
(datestring)Mon, 27 Feb 1995 13:17:50 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) Isn’t the socially neccessary
labor time the amount of time it takes the average producer in an industry to produce
one article while the necessary labor time is the time it takes a particular producer to produce
a single article. If not please explain.
Hans: No, this is not it. The word “necessary labor time” used in Chapter Twelve should not be confused with the
concept of “socially necessary labor time” introduced in Chapter One. The “necessary labor” Marx speaks about in
Chapter Twelve is the length of time every day which the worker needs to produce an equivalent of his or her wage.
Next Message by Deadhead is [856].
[862] Marinda: The new factor introduced is productivity of labor. Relative surplus-value
is the additional surplus-value that results from increases in productivity, with the workday
length held constant.
Hans: Ok.
Next Message by Marinda is [863].
Question 204 is 213 in 1995ut and 235 in 1996sp:

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 275
Question 204 Which are the motives why a capitalist might try to increase the productivity
of his workers?
[764] Darci: After the discussion Wednesday night and the readings, there seems to
be only one motive for capitalists to increase the productivity of his workers. The motive
is money. More productivity leads to more surplus value which creates the profit for the
capitalist. I understand Marx to say that the work day is set, the necessary labor time is also
set at the point that subsistence is provided for, and that if a capitalist can gain more surplus
value he wins (profits). The excess productivity could cause an excess of supply which
also according to Marx lowers the price and encourages other producers to compensate by
increasing the productivity of his laborers. Equilibrium is reached at some point but more
productive work force seems the only way to gain advantage (money) because it is the only
way to change mathematically the division of the work day between necessary labor and
surplus labor which is the way to increase profits.
Hans: You are saying indirectly that the obvious way to make more money, by increasing productivity but still
selling the product at its old price, cannot work in the long run. But this “obvious” way is usually the direct
motivation. Most capitalists do not realize that this strategy is succesful only because behind the backs of the
capitalists it reduces the length of that part of the working day the workers work for themselves.
First Message by Darci is [9].
[768] Frosty: The motive behind a capitalist increasing productivity of his worker is the
extra surplus value the capitalist receives. As productivity increases, extra surplus value is
produced.
Hans: Yes.
Next Message by Frosty is [769].
[772] Ranger: The motive of a capitalist is to increase profits through exploiting the
worker. The capitalist achieves this by increasing the productivity of labour. Increasing
productivity does not lead to a decrease in the workers’ work day, nor does it lead to an
equal increase in the workers’ hourly wage. This is what Marx is saying at the top of page
437. Through the increase of productivity, workers are exploited and their labour time is
cheapened.
Hans: There are at least two misunderstandings here.
(1) Yes, Marxian theory claims that profits come from surplus labor, but workers and capitalists are often not
aware of it, and the capitalists’ day-to-day decisions are not: how can I exploit workers even more, but: how can I
keep up with competition, where is demand going to go, how can I contain costs?
(2) Now assume we have the exceptional case of an employer who has read some Marx. He believes that profits
come from the labor which the workers perform every day after they have produced an equivalent of their wage.
Would he be interested in increasing productivity with the wages and the work day staying the same? If wages
and work day stay the same, this means exactly that the mass of surplus value stays the same. Therefore the profit
motive does not seem to give an incentive to increase productivity.
(datestring)Tue, 21 Feb 1995 09:37:20 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) Thanks for your timely
insight. Another decision that a capitalist faces is in fact how can I improve productivity?
This is a question of efficiency, which may involve decreasing labor time. True, a capitalist
does not say,“how can I exploit my workers even more?” But a capitalist does try to produce
more efficiently, which may come at the expense of the worker.
Hans: Increased productivity means: production of more use values per hour, but not production of more value per
hour. If profits are indeed, as Marx claims, measured in terms of value, then productivity should be irrelevant for
profits. Indeed they are not, but I am missing the explanation in your responses why they are not.
276 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
Next Message by Ranger is [773].
[786] Dubbel: That which motivates the capitalist to increase the productivity of the
worker is what Marx calls surplus value. In essence this means that a worker is able to
produce more in a shorter amount of time. Marx express this in a fall in the value of labor
power and an increase in the productivity. 431:1/o “By an increase in the productivity of
labor, we mean an alteration in the labor process of such a kind as to shorten the labor-time
socially necessary for the production of a commodity, and to endow a given quantity of labor
with the power of producing a greater quantity of use-value.” So the capitalist finds a better
way to make more of a product with fewer people and a shorter time. This will make more
for the producer.
Hans: First of all, regarding this very last word: Marx would not call the capitalist the “producer.”
But your argument is so imprecise that it is almost wrong. You are arguing: if productivity is increased then
there will be more stuff left over for the capitalist after he has paid the worker. Marx would object to this and say:
it is not the goal of the capitalist to produce stuff (use values) but to make profits, and profits are values, and these
values do not care whether they are represented in a big or small amount of use values.
Of course, individuals often become capitalists because this will give them more income, i.e., for their individual
motivations it is important how much use value they get. But in their role as capitalists they must look after profits,
and this is a value category, not a use value category.
The link between increases in prodcuctivity and profits is therefore not as direct as you make it seem.
Next Message by Dubbel is [787].
[790] Telemark: On page 438 the last few sentences of the chapter summerize and answer
question 204 quite nicely. Quote: “The objective of the development of the productivity of
the labour within the context of capitalist production is the shortening of that part of the
working day in which the worker must work for him self, and the lengthening, thereby, of
the other part of the day in which he is free to work for nothing for the capitalist.” Worded
much better than I could have put it. And isn’t it quite convenient for the capitalist to do just
such a thing. I can vision in my own mind a closed door board meeting today in which just
these things are being discussed “confidentially” between the owners, accountants and such
as how to become more efficient and make the company work smoother.
Hans: But keeping in mind that this “efficiency” always means that the capitalist and not the worker should benefit
from the increased efficiency.
I think more often you will find board meetings where the theme is: we must tighten ourbelts, becoem a leaner
operation because costs have risen so much that they are about to eat into profits. It is becoming harder and harder
to make profits, despite the improved technology. (Marx would say because of the improved technology, due to the
law of the falling rate of profit.)
Next Message by Telemark is [791].
[792] Chp: A capitalist might try to increase the productivity of his workers to increase
his profit margin and what Marx calls “surplus-value”. One motive Marx does not talk
about is that the capitalist may increase productivity in order to flood the market with his
product which he would sell at a lower price in order to eliminate his competition. Then the
productivity may return to the rate it was before the increase in production.
Hans: The link between productivity and surplus value is not as direct as you make it seem here. productivity has
to do with use values, while surplus value is value.
Your remark regarding the other motive is very well taken.
Next Message by Chp is [823].
[794] Oj: Capitalist might try to increase the productivity or his workers because he would
like to increase his company’s labor-power. For example, if the productivity of the worker is
decreased then the product will be cheapened, thus causing a fall in labor power. However if

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 277
the productivity is increased then the product will sustain a positive value therefore creating
a profit for the company.
Hans: I think you mean the right thing but the way you formulate it is completely backward. Why would a decrease
in productivity cheapen the product? Re-submit this question again, but think about it a little more first!
Next Message by Oj is [796].
[801] Yoda: The reasons for why a capitalist might try to increase the productivity of
his workers is very simple. The botton line is capital or profit. If the consumer has a choice
between two similar commodities with different brand names, he (the consumer) will usually
choose the commodity with the lower price. An owner of a company will try to reduce his
prices first of all by using the least costly of the raw materials and also by increasing the
productivity of his machines and workers. The workers usually control the machines and if
they can work faster or more productive more commodities will be produced at a lower cost.
The owner can in turn sell his commodity to consumers at a lower price. He will sell more
and make more money than the other procucers.
Hans: And what happens when he is no longer the only supplier using the new technology, but the others have it
too, so that the price of the product falls?
(datestring)Wed, 1 Mar 1995 15:01:09 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) If and when this happens,
the supplier has to use other strategies such as advertising to show that he/she has a
better product than the next guy. The producer can then look for better or faster technology
than the technology he/she already has. If all else fails, the producer can send his raw
materials to Central or South America to be manufactured cheaper. (I hope this doesn’t
happen)
Hans: My question was aimed at the relative surplus value. If the increased productivity affected things the workers
need for a living, then the extra profit will also in equilibrium not be competed away.
Next Message by Yoda is [927].
[802] Eddie: The motives behind a capitalist trying to increase the productivity of his
workers is competetively based. The capitalist is trying very hard to get money. Once the
capitalist has a certain amount of money then he will want to get more and more. The means
of having more are greater outputs from his workers. The output will mean sales. The sales
will mean money. A capitalist is trying to compete against other capitalists with prices,
output, and quality. With motivating his workers the capitalist is getting better output and
quality. This will in the end mean more money.
Hans: What you are writing is very right. It is an excellent starting point, but it is only a starting point. You are
disregarding the mechanisms by which the behavior and motivation which you describe are successful. Is profit a
disequilibrium phenomenon, only those get it who are ahedBa of the competition? Marx says no.
Next Message by Eddie is [803].
[805] Vansmack: Marx says that relative surplus value can only be produced if productivity
rises.
Hans: But Marx says also that relative surplus value is usually not the motivation of the capitalist.
Basically I think that motives for a capitalist increasing his productivity for his workers is
because it leaves a wider margain for error. While the quality of labor is more important than
the quality of labor. If their is a wider range of productivity then there is a wider range for
quality. High producttivity in labor will have an influene on labor-power, when this happens
the commodities will be cheapened and mass quanities of items can be distributed therefore
making the high productivity worthwhile after all.
Hans: Good point. The higher margin for errors also means a de-skilling of the laborer and ultimately lower wages.
278 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
Next Message by Vansmack is [806].
[807] Golfer: A capitalist has several motives in increasing thier productivaty. The primary
motive would be to produce more with less labor increasing the profitability of the
labor. The capitalist has several ways to do this. First, he could create a good working enviroment
to increase productivaty, Second, he could hire more skilled labor, Third, he could
provide better equipment or tecnology. Forth, he could exploit his working force by increaseing
their hours of labor for the same or less pay. All these are ways in which a capitalist
can increase his productivaty.
Hans: Good point. There are many ways to increase productivity, and technology is only one of them. I meant
to ask about technology though. According to the labor theory of value, the value of the product falls if the
technology improves. Assuming, as Marx does, that profits only depend on value, does this mean the capitalists are
not interested in technology?
(datestring)Wed, 15 Mar 1995 16:11:17 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) No, I think capitalists
are very interested in tecnology. Tecnolog is the gateway for making more money with less.
Thus, they are very interested.
Hans: Machines don’t create value, only labor does. You are not getting my question.
Next Message by Golfer is [809].
[813] Titania: A capitalist might try to increase the productivity of his workers because
he pays them the same wages regardless of how much they produce. He will try to induce
them to work more to get “more for his money” (wages paid out.). By making the workers
produce more for the same price, the capitalist will be increasing his profits (the costs stay
fixed while revenue goes up). I suppose the bottom line is greed. I have thought about this
question for a while and examined many examples in my mind. However, despite my efforts
to come up with a “good” example of capitalists enducing workers to work harder, I cannot
find one. Yet, how is the capitalist making his laborers produce more different from the idea
George gives in the class listing? (A whipper who will make lazy people work. Is this really
allowed for in socialism?)
Hans: In my mind, making someone work harder should not be called “increasing the productivity”. Productivity
increases by better means of production. But let us stay with the question you have been pondering about. I get the
sense that you see the following problem: left to themselves, people are likely not to work enough. There must be
some social mechanism which makes sure that the necessary effort is forthcoming. George wrote that he agreed
with the whip as long as the benefits from his increased work will not be pocketed by some greedy capitalist. I think
George’s suggestion is merely a sign of the self-hatred which is incuclated in all of us in this wonderful capitalist
society. I am sure that more human ways can be found. And I am also sure that this problem cannot be resolved in
a society in which there is exploitation.
Next Message by Titania is [815].
[816] Leo: Increasing worker productivity is the main source of profit. Capitalists thrive
on profit.
Hans: According to Marx, profit is value. Increasing worker productivity increases the amount of use values
produced with a given labor time, but does not increase the value. There is a link, but it is not as direct as you make
it appear.
Next Message by Leo is [817].
[825] Stxian: Productivity in a capitalistic society is one of the most important things
that capitalists, investors and management are trying to get the most out of it while using the
limited resources. There are several motivation behind the desire and need for increasing
productivity, generally speaking, increasing the productivity is ‘good’ thing just as long
as you are balancing everything else (I mean over-producing and disregard the society’s

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 279
capacity and the whole social structure and environmental concern). One of the biggest
driving force behind productivity increase is that the capitalist want more profit, because by
increase worker’s productivity, he/she can get more product out by using the same amount of
time, labor and machinery to produce it, which in term generates more revenue for him/her.
Another reason for increas the produtivity is directly linked to the increase of consumer
demand. Or there could be a case in which during recession, the capitalist has to cut back on
labor (working force), so he/she will try to increase the remaining worker’s productivity and
help to increase worker’s efficiency. Finally, increase of worker’s productivity is gerenally
considered good in a capitalist society, because it can contribute more wealth to a nation in
a sense of that higher revenue makes the capitalist pay more taxes, and this could lead to
increase of other beneficts as well, for instance, capitalist might pay worker more bonus if
productivity and sales grow in propotion; with the increase of government’s tax revenue, the
government might increase and fund more social program and benefit the public, this is what
I consider to be the good side of productivity increase. The not so bright side of increase
in producitivity is such that to a point when capitalist dis-regard the environmental concern
and reach to a ponit of too much ‘producer surplus’ , so instead of benefit the workers, it has
negative effect on worker’s wage and salary because of over producing. So, I think capitalist
should encourage productivity and keep a clean and whole picture of the society as a whole,
that way every body can gain from increase in productivity.
Hans: Good essay about the pros and cons of productivity increases. But this general consideration is not the
motive of the capitalist. He cannot afford having his decisions governed by these general reasons.
Next Message by Stxian is [830].
[826] Johny: It is given in the example Marx uses with the pair of boots. Marx states the
example that a cobbler makes one pair of boots in 12 hours, with a given set of tools. But if
the productivity of labor increases, the cobbler could possibly make two instead of 1, given
an alteration of tools and his mode of production. This is why capitalism is so successful. In
a non-capitalist society one will not have incentives for productivity of labor. In a capitalist
society, most everything is based on productivity. If there is no production a capitalist will
fail. Also, if the productivity of labor increases, then an individual capitalist may cheapen
his commodities, thus selling more.
Hans: Capitalism is not as friendly to productivity increases as you think.
Only your last sentence is really to the subject. Is the purpose of the capitalist to sell as much as possible? If it
is not, if his purpose is profit, then you should still explain how one gets from selling more to more profits, in order
to make your answer complete.
(datestring)Wed, 1 Mar 1995 15:28:14 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) Sorry, I stated that wrong.
The purpose of a capitalist is to make as much profit as possible. But the statement about
trying to sell as much as possible correlates with this statement. If one sells more products
then one is going to make more profit.
Hans: If he has to lower the price in order to sell more, then this may not be the case. His purpose is therefore to
lower his cost and not to lower the price.
Next Message by Johny is [828].
[829] Mikey: If you increase the productivity of your worker’s you decrease the value of
labor. this in return could result i a a lower overall price of the commodity. Which would
increase sells that bring forth more profits. But this is not always achievable with just one
280 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
commodity. With many commodities you can increase production and lower value of labor
and lower the price of that or many commodities and increase sells resulting in more profits.
Hans: In the Marxian theory, the lower overall price of the commodity does not come from a lower price of labor.
It is the other way round: higher productivity means less labor is necessary (here I am talking about labor hours,
not the wage costs!), therefore the worker’s consumption bundle contains less labor, is cheaper, therefore the wages
can fall, therefore more profits.
But all this is usually not the reason why an individual capitalist increases productivity. The question asked
which reasons they usually have.
Next Message by Mikey is [832].
[833] Stalin: I think that a capitalist would increase the productivety of his workers to get
the most work out of them and pay them the least amount in wages. Increased productivety
means that the owner will make more profit, which is the bottum line.
Hans: Yes, one way to increase productivity is to make the worker work harder. But the kind of productivity
increase Marx is talking about in Chapter Twelve is the introduction of new technology. Here you should explain
more carefully the link between technology and higher profits.
Next Message by Stalin is [839].
[834] Scarlett: A capitalist’s motives to try and increase the productivity of his workers
is inherent in the capitalist system, and is the basis of microeconomic theory. The capitalist
will try to maximize his or her profits. By increasing the productivity of his worker, he makes
the production of each article cheaper. When the cost of producing each article decreases,
profits will increase.
Hans: This is true if the price of the good is unaffected by the increase in productivity (and this is often the
assumption of the capitalist in his short term decisions).
(datestring)Fri, 24 Feb 1995 11:01:45 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) I was under the impression
that the capitalist would do this even if the price was affected, as long as the price was
high enough. What other motives would he have?
Hans: I made my comment because according to the labor theory of value the equilibrium price is not “high
enough”. Basically the motivation of the capitalist is based on a mistaken conception of the underlying economic
mechanisms. It would have been relevant to point this out.
Next Message by Scarlett is [835].
[842] Eagle: By increasing productivity, it reduces the value of labor power and causes the
price of their product to decrease. Products made by other companies may tend to follow the
same pattern and eventually the subsistence level is lower while the companies are selling
more of their product. The motives to increase productivity then would be to increase profit,
lower labor-power, and decrease the subsistence level.
Hans: The reduction in the value of the labor power is a beneficial effect of increases in productivity, but usually
capitalists do not increase productivity for this purpose. Their motives are usually different.
(datestring)Wed, 15 Mar 1995 06:45:16 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) I believe that the main
motive in increasing productivity is to increase profits. According to Marx, the main goal of
capitalists is to make profit.
Hans: yes, their motive is what Marx calls extra surplus value, and after everyone has introduced the new technology,
this extra surplus value becomes relative surplus value, as you described in your first submission.
Next Message by Eagle is [843].
[847] Vida: The capitalist tries to increase the productivity of his workers to cheapen the
means of subsistence in order to create extra surplus value. The increase in productivity
maximizes the allocated resources and creates a greater level of efficiency. The greater level

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 281
of efficiency is necessary in the eyes of the capitalist to produce the almighty profit that the
capitalist so desires.
Hans: The cheapening of the means of subsistence is usually not the direct motivation of the capitalist. This is
why I asked: hat is the motivation? Also: according to the labor theory of value, greater efficiency does not mean
more value. There are some steps missing in your argument.
Next Message by Vida is [848].
[854] Oregon: The motives of the the capitalist is a purely monetary reason. When the
lenght of the working day is shortened from 12 to 10 hours then the worker needs to increase
his productivity to make up for the 2 hours that are lost. The increase of technology will lead
to an increase of productivity which will inturn lead to an increase in profits.
Hans: But under the labor theory of value, the increased productivity does not increase the value produced during
the day. Does this mean, in the long run the profits will be competed away again?
Next Message by Oregon is [1033].
[884] Tuan: The primary motive for capitalist to increase the productivity of worker is
extra surplus value, money or profit. More productivity lead to more surplus which create
the profit for capitalist. The capitalist can do many ways to increase productivity of worker
by moving to another foreign country to exploit the worker for less pay, using more skill
labor and technology to do many thing at once without much labor.
Hans: A move to a low wage country may increase profit but does so not necessarily by increasing the productivity
of the worker. On the contrary, usually the production techniques in the low wage country are less productive than
those in the high wage country.
Next Message by Tuan is [887].
[885] Sms: A capitalist will attempt to increase the productivity of his workers to increase
his surplus value. As the productivity increases, more surplus value is produced. The
capitalist might increase productivity by replacing workers with machinery, computers, etc.
Hans: If Marx is right, profits come from the unpaid labor of the workers, and machines do not create surplus value.
How can then the capitalist increase his profit by replacing workers (who create surplus value) with machinery
(which does not)?
(datestring)Wed, 15 Mar 1995 13:54:57 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) A capilaist will try to
increase the productivity of his workers in order to increase his product which he can sell at
the same price, creating extra surplus value for the capitalist.
Hans: This is the answer which I was looking for.
Next Message by Sms is [888].
[902] Translat: To increase profits by expending less. He strives for less labor time
and faster production to increase the surplus value. He is also striving to underprice his
competition and therefore gain an advantage in the market.
Hans: In the framework of the labor theory of value one might wonder if this is not a futile chase for short-term
advantages which will be competed away in the long run, since in the long run higher technology means lower
prices and no extra margin for profit.
(datestring)Wed, 1 Mar 1995 17:33:37 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) Agreed. Once the advantage
has been reached, in a relative short time competitors will also have the technology.
The mom and pop operations will be driven out of business and the competition will again
be at the same level as before. I had an instructor who likens it to a snake eating his own tail,
eventually there is no where to go.
Hans: Marx’s theory of relative surplus value says that it is not really futile (but all this is beyond the subject of
this Question, and I am not expecting an answer from you).
Next Message by Translat is [903].
282 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
[939] Cmanson: A capitalist would try to increase the productivitly of his workers in order
to have more product produced at the same price. Therefore, the capitalist could sell more
product for the same production cost or lower his proce to adjust for the lower production
cost. this would enable him to compete better with other competitors in his industry due to
his lower prices.
Hans: Ok.
Next Message by Cmanson is [941].
[987] Ghant: A capitalist might try to increase the productivity of his workers to boost
his profits, to increase his output, to eliminate the need for excess laborers, to lessen his
dependency on machinery, to give himself an advantage over his competition, or any number
of other reasons. Marx thinks that a capitalist will try to increase his workers productivity in
order to get more surplus-value from his workers.
An example, if a worker whom you pay $100 a week raises his/her output from $1,000
of commodity A per week to $1,100 of commodity A per week, the capitalist has increased
the money in his own pocket by $100, without having to pay any extra wages.
Hans: There is a difference between forcing the worker to work harder and raising his productivity. Higher productivity
means: more or better output with the same effort.
Next Message by Ghant is [988].
[1000] Hippie: The main motive for a capitalist to increase productivity of a worker is
value. It is like being able to increase the output of a machine without paying for the extra
energy. As discussed in question 202, this is where the worker gets exploited. The worker
is compelled to work harder and be more efficient through the fear of losing his job if he is
unproductive. The capitalist then recieves more work output by the worker per hour. The
capitalist saves money by doing this. The worker who used to produce 5 work units per hour
is now producing 6 work units per hour and getting paid the same amount. This works best
when there is a small job market and the worker feels that he has to work harder to insure
his job security.
Hans: There is a difference between increasing productivity and forcing the worker to work harder.
Next Message by Hippie is [1001].
[1008] Slrrjk: A capitalist might try to increase the productivity of his/her workers because
in doing so the capitalist would gain extra surplus value and in turn that would create
higher profits. Higher profits are what a capitalist wants and increasing productivity would
enable the capitalist to achieve that goal. If an individual capitalist had higher productivity
in his/her workers the labor time necessary for production of a given product would be
less than that of the socially necessary labor time for that product so the capitalist would
gain extra surplus value which would in turn create higher profits as I stated above. So the
motivation is extra surplus value - higher profits.
Hans: Ok.
Next Message by Slrrjk is [1009].
[1019] Ledzep: The capitalist wants more. This is the more obvious answer to the question.
Although, Marx argues that increasing productivity does not always increase surplus
value. However, productivity is a good thing depending on the intention of the use of productivity.
If I didn’t have this computer in front of me, the class design would have been
different. You, Prof. Ehrbar, would have to be looking through a stack of papers reading
answers to these questions, decreasing your productivity. This orderly, productive system of

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 283
using email, by you the efficient capitalist (in a sense), has enabled us to increase our pace
of learning while saving paper and time. I just wanted to call you a capitalist, it felt good.
Hans: Capitalists think their profits are due to their more efficient production method. They don’t see themselves
exploiting labor in particular. And the extra surplus value seems to confirm their view. This is one of the factors
which makes exploitation so hard to see.
Next Message by Ledzep is [1020].
[1023] Renegade: Marx’s emphasis was on the exploitative wage-contract as the heart of
capitalitic social relations. Capitalism is based on the accumulation of capital. This occurs
through the extraction of surplus value from wage laborers. Since the laborer sells his/her
labor to the capitalist and not the product, the capitalist’s motive of increased productivity
of the workers is to extract more surplus value.
Hans: Ok, more or less.
Next Message by Renegade is [1024].
Question 205 is 238 in 1996sp, 237 in 1996ut, 290 in 1997WI, 355 in 1997sp, 354 in
1997ut, 363 in 1998WI, 364 in 1999SP, 477 in 2001fa, 516 in 2002fa, 536 in 2003fa, 590
in 2004fa, 543 in 2005fa, 596 in 2007SP, 586 in 2007fa, 598 in 2008fa, 627 in 2009fa,
690 in 2010fa, 710 in 2011fa, 739 in 2012fa, and 690 in Answer:
Question 205 Does the introduction of new machinery increase the value produced during
the day?
[770] Braydon: No, according to Marx machinery does not increase the value that is
produced. The value comes from the labor time involved, when using machinery you are
cutting the labor time and thus cutting the value. He states this very clearly in his assigning
each day $1.44 a day. The value of each article goes down the more that is produced.
Machinery just helps in creating more articles and machinery cannot create value. Human
labor does.
Hans: Yes. The questions called “review question” are simple questions.
Next Message by Braydon is [771].
[793] Chance: Without giving much thought to this question, one would probably answer
yes. However, I believe the answer is clearly no. (Which, I thinK Marx would argree with).
The introduction of new machinery will increase the total amount of “widgets” produced in
a day, but that does not correspond to an increase in value. Value is determined by what
people are willing to pay for an item – social value. Just because a farmer can produce more
onions in a day, does not mean that the value will increase. He will just be able to produce
more. In fact, his prices may fall because he produces more, and the market may not demand
more. However, if there is more available, and the demand has not changed, the value may
fall. Additionally, the social value may decrease over time. As technology increases, people
will be less and less inclined to pay as much as they were if the labor hours required for
production decrease. As a side note, if I were the farmer, I would want the new machinery
even though the value of what is produced may not increase.
Hans: You consider value to be a market category: the price the product can command. In Marx’s usage, value is
a production category (labor content) which then manifests itself on the market.
Otherwise it is ok (but it is about time that you get the thing with value straight).
Next Message by Chance is [795].
284 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
[796] Oj: Question 205 Yes, the use of machinery increases the value produced during
the day. If an owner of a company were to buy highly productive machinery for a lot of
money he would probably lose money. In contrast however, if he buys the equipment and it
produces at a higher rate than the traditional worker does then eventually the owner will gain
that money back and some. So, the machine will create a higher productivity level, therefore
letting the owner of the company cut down on workers that he has to pay. This creates a big
profit in the long run, because instead of paying all of his workers he lets the machine do the
work which he has already paid for.
Hans: This is not the labor theory of value but a theory by which machinery creates value.
Next Message by Oj is [797].
[819] Allison: The introduction of new machinery does not necessarily increase the value
produced during the day. It may, however, spread the same amount of value over more articles
or widgets. Perhaps more articles are produced that each has embodied in it a relatively
smaller amount of the value, thereby spreading the value thinner across the total amount of
articles produced.
Hans: Ok.
Next Message by Allison is [820].
[843] Eagle: Yes. The value of each article drops slightly but twice as much of the article
is being produced so the final value at the end of the day is higher than that of products made
without machinery.
Hans: You must still be thinking in terms of market price. The right answer here, in terms of the labor theory of
value, is that the value does not increase.
(datestring)Wed, 15 Mar 1995 06:49:28 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) You are right, I was
thinking of market price. I was still unclear on the term ‘value’. I can now see what you
are saying. The value of each article does not increase, even though the profit made off of it
might.
Hans: I take it you meant to say: the value of the total sum of articles produced during the day does not increase.
Next Message by Eagle is [955].
[887] Tuan: What I understand about the introduction of new machinery based on Marx’s
theory is that the introduction of new machinery do increase the total amount of widget production
a day but do not really increase the value that produced. Perhaps, it produce the less
or more of value and output. Evidently, the more the ouput produced from the introduction
of new machinery, the more likely bad product come out. The main reason is that the value
is come from labor work. If the new machinery is involved a lot, without enough labor, the
value will start to decline quickly because there is no quality control from labor. Most importantly,
the machinery do not check value 100% right because it is a machine and it might
break randomly.
Hans: Your definition of “value” is apparently the quality and care with which the product is made, and “value” is
often used in commercials in this way. But this is not Marx’s concept of value.
Next Message by Tuan is [890].
[903] Translat: No. The value of the means of production remains the same, but the value
of the item is less.
Hans: New machinery usually means that the value of the means of production increases.
(datestring)Wed, 1 Mar 1995 17:35:53 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) Does the value of the
production increase or the surplus labor?

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 285
Hans: All I said was that the value of the means of production usually increases, because you had written that it
remains the same.
Next Message by Translat is [904].
[998] Ledzep: The introduction of new machinery does not increase value produced
during a day. According to Marx, machines cannot create any new value. Since the new
machinery would increase the amount of commodities produced, with no extra value being
added, the value per commodity would have a net decrease because the same value as before
the machinery is now being transferred over a greater number of commodities.
Hans: Well, the machine also gradually transfers its own value to the product (depreciation), and if the machine is
more productive and therefore represents more value, perhaps this transferred part rises too. But in general you are
right.
Next Message by Ledzep is [1018].
Question 206 is 215 in 1995ut and 239 in 1996sp:
Question 206 Explain the difference between individual value and social value.
[762] Civic: Individual value is the labor represented in a single commodity. The social
value is the average necessary labor of all similar commodities under the average social
conditions. Therefore if new methods of production are used for a given commodity, the
labor for that commodity could be less than the average labor necessary to produce that type
of commodity. Thus if that commodity was still sold at the social value, the capitalist realizes
an extra surplus value on the sale. The strive for new technologies is in reality a strive to
expand the relative surplus value of commodities.
Hans: Yes.
Next Message by Civic is [844].
[769] Frosty: The difference between individual value and social value is that individual
value is the labor time that the article costs the producer in each individual case while the
social value is the labor time that is socially necessary for its production.
Hans: Yes.
Next Message by Frosty is [860].
[771] Braydon: Individual value refers to the actual labor time that is put into creating
the actual article an d what it costs its producer to create it. Social value would be the “labor
time socially required for its production.” Which I think would mean what they actually can
sell the article for or the price that society would buy the article.
Hans: Look at the words: “labor time socially required for its production”. It does not say anything about demand
or sales price. Marx thinks here in terms of constant returns to scale, so that demand does not determine the price
but only the quantity of the goods offered.
Re-reading it I found that it could be the labor time that is involved in creating the same
articles in normal conditions without using, let’s say, machinery to cut the time in half.
Hans: This is right except that the “normal” conditions are the ones which use up-to-date production methods.
Nowadays it is not “normal” to produce without machinery.
Next Message by Braydon is [870].
[773] Ranger: It is important to realize that a capitalist profits if the individual labor time
of the capitalist’s produced commodity is less than the social average labor time. Social
value is derived from an average of labor times from many producers. Individual value is
labor time derived from a single producer.
Hans: Yes.
286 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
Next Message by Ranger is [857].
[776] Ann: The difference between individual value and social value comes down to
productivity of labor. When there is an increase in the current production of labor, the value
of the article falls and the value of the production remains the same. The value of the articles
fall because the value is now spread over twice as many articles. The individual value of
these articles, meaning their worth, has now dropped below their social value because it now
costs less to produce them. The social value on an article is measured by the labor time
socially required for its production. To make extra surplus a merchant would want to sell
their articles above the individual value and at the social value. So they are increasing the
amount of productivity of labor to gain this surplus.
Hans: Yes.
Next Message by Ann is [777].
[783] Tsunami: As described by Marx, individual value is value measured by the amount
of labor-time that the article costs the producer in each individual case (sounds kind of
like the opportunity cost forgone by the producer, to me). social value, on the other hand,
is measured by the labor-time that is socially required for that article’s production. the
difference between individual and social value, as I understand it, is that individual value
is a constant value, whereas social value is variable, given changes in machine and capital
technology which affect the labor-time socially required for an article’s production. the
difference between the individual value and the social value is the surplus value.
Hans: No, this difference is the extra surplus value. There is surplus value also in cases where individual and
social value coincide. You have quite a bit of confusion about that stuff. Read the text more carefully and re-submit
this answer.
(datestring)Fri, 24 Feb 1995 17:42:08 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) Your lecture on Wednesday,
February 22 helped clear up my confusion. Surplus value is in actuality the difference
between what workers produce and what workers cost–workers produce much more than
they cost. This occurs due to the equilibrium phenonmenon prior to technological change.
With technological innovation, comes extra surplus value, because workers are now even
more productive, the difference between what they produce and what they cost grows even
more. Eventually, however, as other firms adopt technologies, this extra surplus gets diffused
and it becomes relative surplus value.
Hans: Good.
Next Message by Tsunami is [784].
[787] Dubbel: The individual value is less than the social value. The difference between
the two values is called the extra surplus value. This compare the difference in cost in in
labor time to produce an article. As Marx explains by taking the average cost of 24cents
and 2 hours of labor, but under the different mode the cost is only 18 cents and requires 1
1/2 hour to produce. The lower cost is the individual value and the higher cost is the social
value. Marx explains it best. “If therefore, the capitalist who applies the new method sells his
commodity at its social value of 24 cents, he sells it for 6 cents above its individual value,
the 6 cents is the extra surplus value.” The individual price is the price of the commodity
before it hits the market, and the social value is the price when it hits the market what the
majority of the consumers will pay.
Hans: But don’t confuse the individual value with the cost of the article. The cost is always below the value
because the labor cost are always below the value added by the worker.

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 287
Next Message by Dubbel is [896].
[799] Ida: I think the difference between the individual value and the social value is
determined by the amount of time one takes to make an article for one person compared
to the average. Marx gives an example of the individual value of an article below their
social value-these articles have cost less labor-time than the same articles produced under
the average social conditions. Under social value an article may take 2 hours worth of labor
and cost 50 cents. However, if an individual can also make that article in 1 hour, this would
be at 25 cents. The value of these articles is now below their social value. The whole idea of
the individual value and the social value is for the capitalist who can (or whose workers can)
make this article at the lower rate, can now sell the article for 25 cents above its individual
value, the capitalist now has an extra surplus of 25 cents.
Hans: exactly.
Next Message by Ida is [800].
[803] Eddie: Individual value is the value obtained in producing a commodity. When an
individual produces a commodity he can do so in a certain amount of time. The social value
is the value the society places on the object. For this reason capitalists can make money.
The individual produces the commodity for a certain price and then sells it socially and can
make a profit.
Hans: No, this is not it.
(datestring)Wed, 8 Mar 1995 12:15:12 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) Individual value is the
cost of labor in producing a commodity by an individual. The social value is the average
value, ie labor hours, for producing the same commodity.
Hans: Yes.
Next Message by Eddie is [923].
[806] Vansmack: In my opinion, I think that individual value and social value can have
a huge difference between the two of them. I think that the individual value of something
is how much labor goes into making it, how hard it is to find, etc. The social value is how
much it is worth when it goes out into the market in society. Sometimes individual and social
values will stay even with each other, but in other cases one can outweigh the other. If one
outweighs the other in a good way than it can be a “gold mine” for the producer. An example
would be Nike shoes. Although the shoes can be made in mass quanities at cheap prices,
because of effective advertising and other social reasons their social value can probably be
ten times as high as their individual value.
Hans: Your home-made theory of capitalism is full of holes and contradictions. You would certainly benefit from
working through the text. Even if you don’t agree with Marx’s theory, this would at least be a theory which is
internally consistent.
Next Message by Vansmack is [808].
[809] Golfer: A capitalist makes a profit by creating a labor force that has a greater value
than the social average of labor. The way this is accomplished is by introducing individual
labor with greater value than the social average. Thus, if the individual labor produces a
commodity faster it is more profitable for the capitalist. The social value is based on the
average production.The main difference is individual value is based on actual labor, and
social value is based on an average.The closer the capitalist can come to individual value the
more profitablr he will be.
Hans: Yes. But this is not the general principle of making profits.
288 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
Next Message by Golfer is [886].
[811] Zaskar: It seems to me that the difference between individual and social value
deals with the difference between comparing a one to many relationship. The individual
value (work + means of production) of an article will very likely differ slightly from similar
article to similar article. However, there is an average value for this similar article when
produced by many members of society. This value becomes the article’s value in the societal
context or “social value”. Similar articles can cost more or less when produced depending
on production method and a variety of other factors such as individual worker pace. This
is the “individual value” of the article. The difference between the individual value of an
article and its social value can yield a producer a surplus-value.
Hans: Yes, very good.
Next Message by Zaskar is [812].
[814] Nena: According to Marx’s argument, the social value is measured by the labor time
of the great bulk of the same articles produced under the the average social conditions, but
the individual value is measured by the labor time needed to produce these articles under the
alternative (new) method by one capitalist. And the difference between the social value and
individual value is the extra surplus value. For example, if each article costs, on an average,
30 cents, and represent 3 hours of social labor, but under the new method of production, it
cost only 15 cents (represept 1.5 hours of labor time), then the difference of 15 cents is the
extra surplus value for the capitalist who produced the commodities by new method (cost 15
cents) and sold them at its social value of 30 cents. So, we can say that someone can increase
the extra surplus-value by using the new (alternative) method of production (ie., using new
equipment), which can increase the productivity, reduce the necessary labor time and thus
reduce his individual value. From this kind of relationship, we also know that the motivation
for increasing productivity is the extra surplus value, which is the difference between the
individual value and the social value. But, I think, when this new (alternative) method of
production becomes available to the whole market, everyone can use this method to increase
his productivity and reduce his individual value in order to increase his extra value, the social
value will adjust by itself (reduce to the value equal to the individual value by using this kind
of new method), and the extra surplus value creating by using this kind of new method will
not exit any more, am I right?
Hans: Yes, exactly. But if the article enters the workers’ consumption bundle, then this extra surplus value may
become available to all capitalists in the form of relative surplus value.
Next Message by Nena is [948].
[817] Leo: The individual value of a product is the actual cost of production. Social value
is the amount that is socially acceptable to charge for the product.
Hans: No, that is not it.
(datestring)Mon, 27 Feb 1995 15:42:36 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) Individual value is the
labor time it costs the producer. While social value is labor time socially necessary for
production.
Hans: yes.
Next Message by Leo is [876].
[820] Allison: The individual value is a close examination of the amount of labor time it
costs to produce one specific article. The amount of labor time that it costs to produce one
specific article is then identified as its individual value. The social value is representative

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 289
of the labor-time exhausted in the production of the same article only now it is taken as an
average against all of these types of articles produced in an industry. It is the labor time
required ‘socially’ to produce one of these articles, not an examination of one individual,
specific articles labor time cost.
Hans: Ok.
Next Message by Allison is [821].
[824] Sammy: Individual value is determined by the productivity of a single producer.
On the other hand, social value is determined by the market as a whole. The average labor
time necessary to produce determines the social value. This idea dates back to the first few
weeks of class. Understanding the distinction is important as it allows for the possibility for
extra surlpus value if a producer’s individual value is less than the social value.
Hans: Yes.
Next Message by Sammy is [827].
[830] Stxian: Let’s take an example in answering this question, if a capitalist produces
commodity x, and if one hour’s labor is embodied in 6 cents, and suppose that 6 commodity
x is produced in 8 hours, let the value of the means of production used in each commodity
x be 6 cents. Under these circumstances, each commodity x costs 12 cents: 6 cents for
the value of the means of production, and 6 cents for the value newly added in working
with those means. If the capitalist doubles it’s productivity of labor, and to produce 12
commodity x in 8 hours, the value of the means of production remaining the same, the value
of each commodity x will fall to 9 cents, made up of 6 cents for the value of the means of
production and 3 cents for the value newly added by the albor . the individual value now is 9
cents, which is below their social value 12 cents because of the altered mode of production.
If the capitalist sell the commodity x at 12 cents each, then, he/she is going to have a extra
surplus-value of 3 cents. So, in general, social value is the value reflected in the cost of
hourly labor plus the value of the means of production. Individual value in this case is the
new hourly labor plus the value of the means of production (which stays the same).
Hans: When you say: 1 hour’s labor is embodied in 6 cents, then this is not the labor cost. The worker will get
less in wages per hour, perhaps he gets 3 cents.
Next Message by Stxian is [938].
[832] Mikey: Individual value: Is the labor time that one person puts into a commodity
until it is sold. Social Value: Is were the commodity is produced for so many labor hours.
But is only part of the social value hours that your society allows. ex: You goto get your car
worked on. They look up in a book to see haw many hours of labor time it will take to do
the repairs. Then you give the OK and they start the work. The thing is you have to pay for
the book hours even thou they it only took them half the book rate.
Hans: Good example. But your definition is terrible. In the future you must avoid writing sentences like this:
Social Value: Is were the commodity is produced for so many labor hours. But is only
part of the social value hours that your society allows.
Hans: This does not make any sense. Work on your formulations!
Next Message by Mikey is [908].
[837] Sprewell: Individual value is measured in the instance of a single commodity,
whereas social value is the value of all other similar commodities produced under the average
social conditions. For example, if a producer can reduce the amount of labor-time required
to produce his product below the amount socially required then his individual value will be
290 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
less than the social value of that product. But he can then sell it at its social value and realize
an extra surplus-value.
Hans: Yes.
Next Message by Sprewell is [897].
[873] Makarios: As we already know, the value of any commodity is the labor-time
necessary to produce that commodity. The difference between individual and social value
is that individual value, which is caused by an increase in productivity, is the labor-time
necessary for an individual capitalist to produce the commodity, whereas the social value is
the social, or average labor-time necessary to produce that same commodity.
Hans: Yes.
Next Message by Makarios is [964].
[988] Ghant: Individual-value is the labor represented in a single commodity. Socialvalue
is the average necessary labor for the average commodity of the same type, given similiar
social conditions. Social-value is the average of many, many individual values within
similiar commodities. Since all similiar commodities generally have the same exchangevalue,
a commodity which is produced with a smaller amount of labor-time than the average
(individual-value), possesses more surplus-value to be reaped by the capitalist.
Hans: I wish you would choose, at this late date, questions which are not already beaten to death in the archive.
Next Message by Ghant is [989].
[1009] Slrrjk: Individual value is the amount of labor time necessary for an individual to
produce a specific product. Social value is the amount of socially necessary labor time for a
given product. Social value is more of an average of the labor time necessary to produce a
given product within a particular industry. Individual value may vary at any given point in
time, but social value is constant at a given point in time. For example, if new technology is
introduced within a particular firm, productivity goes up within that firm and the amount of
labor time necessary to produce a given product goes down. The social value of that product
however stays the same and the inidividual labor time necessary to produce the product is
less than the social labor time necessary to produce the same product. So individual value is
based on the labor time necessary for a product to be produced by and individual producer
while social value is the socially necessary labor time needed to produce the same product.
The difference between the individual value and the social value in the preceding example
can be realized by the individual producer as extra surpulus value which in turn creates
higher profit. This is one reason for the race towards new technology/higher productivity by
individual firms.
Hans: Ok.
Next Message by Slrrjk is [1010].
Question 207 is 216 in 1995ut, 240 in 1996sp, 238 in 1996ut, 291 in 1997WI, and 356 in
1997sp:
Question 207 Why does Marx say the social value is the “effective” value?
[774] Sinbad: I believe Marx is saying that the social value is the actual value in the article.
This social value is the value established by not just one individual producer but perhaps set
up cooperatively by all producers under the same average social conditions. If one individual
producer is able to alter their mode of production in such a way that the production labortime
is reduced, they will obtain an extra surplus-value in their product. Could it be that

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 291
over time this social value would change? If each individual producer developed new ways
of production then the average social conditions would no longer hold true. The competition
created by producers would naturally adjust the effective value because the social conditions
have now changed. (I see later Marx discusses this issue. As the individual capitalist applies
his new method of production, he is compelled to sell his goods below the social value; this in
turn forces his competitors to adopt the new method in order to compete in the market. I still
wonder if the social value will adjust when all producers alter their method of production.)
Hans: Yes, the social value will adjust. For a time, the innovators have a lower individual value than the rest, but
afterwards, the social value drops to the level which originally was the individual value for a few.
Next Message by Sinbad is [775].
[777] Ann: The social value of a article is the effective value because labor time is measured
by the labor time socially required for its production and not by what the article costs
each producer to produce. From this measurement a producer is able to gain a surplus from
their articles by selling at the social value which is above the individual value. So therefore
the social value is the more effective value.
Hans: Yes.
Next Message by Ann is [846].
[797] Oj: Marx calls the social value the “effective” value because its value does not
come from how much the commodity cost the producer, it comes from its social labor time
in which it was produced. The individual value of commodity is not worth as much as
the social value because they have less cost labor time than the social value. If a social
value producer and a individual value producer create the same commodity the social value
producer can increase his price because his labor time is worth more, therefore he can create
a surplus in profit while the individual value producer would have a difficult time.
Hans: You are confusing the concept of individual value with cost. The concept of cost is important, but individual
value is something different.
Next Message by Oj is [950].
[800] Ida: Marx says the social value is the effective value because the article’s value isn’t
measured by the labor-time that the article costs the producer in each indiviual case, but by
the labor-time socially required for its production. This goes back again to the capitalist
who can use some new method in producing an article and make a profit of 25 cents on
each article. Socially the article may take 2 hours at 50 cents, but someone else can make it
individually in 1 hour for 25 cents.
Hans: Yes.
Next Message by Ida is [922].
[808] Vansmack: In my last question (206) I said that the social value could turn basically
ordinary items into “gold mines” for their producers if their social vlues happened to be
working in their favor. I believe that this can also happen in the totally opposite direction
of the gold mine theory. If something is hard to get, and then takes a lot of skilled labor
time, and then is a bust socially it can be devastating economically. The social values can
really make or break your business. it is the social values that are the final judge of your
commodity. I think that Marx is saying that a commodity is socially effective by the labortime
socially required for its production. that is basically the way I look at it. Time is money,
and if it takes a long time to develop a product then it better make a lot of money.
Hans: Not only do you fail to notice the inconsistencies in your own theory, but you also do not see where your
home-grown tbeory differs from Marx’s.
292 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
Next Message by Vansmack is [914].
[812] Zaskar: I believe Marx refers to the “social value” of an article as its “effective
value” because it is the price at which the article can be acquired from the average vendor
under average social conditions. It is the price generally recognized as constituting the means
of production + the work necessary to yield the commodity for the public. If the “individual
value” of an individual article is more or less, the vendor stands to lose or gain the difference
on that article.
Hans: Exactly.
Message [812] referenced by [895]. Next Message by Zaskar is [917].
[821] Allison: The social value is the effective value, because it is this value that truly
represents the overall value of the article, perhaps the individual value of the article is below
the social value...its real value is still the socially required labor time for that type of article.
Therefore, the actual representation of value is found in the social value thereby making it
the effective value.
Hans: Yes.
Next Message by Allison is [969].
[827] Sammy: Marx statement that the social value is the effective value relates to the
capitalist producer, rather than producers for thier own consumption. One who produces for
his own consumption is interested only in the individual value. If he can produce his needs in
a shorter time he may have free time to go golfing or whatever. What is socially acceptable
does not really matter to him. However, we are talking capitalism here. A capitalist producer
is very interested in the social value of his commodities. If the social value is greater than
his individual value he is well off. If the opposite is true he is in big trouble. If it costs me
two hours labor time to produce something society, on average, takes four hours to make, I
will be able to turn a tidy profit. If I take four hours, and society takes only two I had better
find a way to become more productive, or look for another occupation.
Hans: Yes, you are seeing something about which Marx also remarked. For the independent producer, it is a
matter of how long he has to work and how well he will live whether he adheres to the social standards or not. The
capitalist, by contrast, has no choice: he must adhere to (or exceed) the social standards.
Next Message by Sammy is [970].
[828] Johny: Marx states this because a commodities costs the producer in each individual
case. It is measured by the labor time socially required for the production. Marx believes
that the surplus-value will go up. This means that if he sells it at the social value as opposed
to the individual value then one will make more money. I believe that this is true but if one’s
productivity of work increases then one can afford to sell it cheaper and therefore one can
sell more if it is cheaper and possibly make much more money.
Hans: Unclear. There are gaps in your argument.
Next Message by Johny is [831].
[856] Deadhead: Marx says that the social value is the “effective” value because the value
of a commodity is not determined in each individual case by how much labor time that it
takes each individual producer to produce one article but instead it is determined by a sort
of average of the time it takes for all producers of a particular good to produce one article of
a certain commodity. It is this social value that is used when determining the price at which
the atricles are bought and sold.
Hans: Ok.
Next Message by Deadhead is [893].

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 293
[888] Sms: Marx states that the social value is the “effective value” because it is the
“true” value of the article. The article’s value article’s value is not measured by the amount
of labor-time cost to the producer, but rather the labor-time which is socially required for its
production. Thus, the producer is able to gain a surplus for the commodity by selling at the
social value which is above the individual value.
Hans: Then let me rephrase my question: why is the average more “true” than the individual circumstances from
which the average is taken?
Next Message by Sms is [891].
[895] Tuan: Marx says that social value is the effective value because social value is recognized
by socially required for production, not individually article cost to produce. Social
time value is always more price than individual value of the article because it is commonly
attractive by media and vendor in social economic news.
Hans: No, this is a basic misunderstanding. Look at [812] for a correct answer.
Next Message by Tuan is [967].
[1001] Hippie: Marx says the social value is the effective value here as the value of the
commodity is represented for example at the market. When the in dividual value of the
article in the example is 18 cents, that is what it cost the capitalist to produce the article.
The capitalist realizes a lower individual value because he has invested in machinery that
produces the article cheaply. For someone who isn’t a capitalist, they do not have the means
to produce the article that cheaply. the can only produce the article at a cost of 24 cents.
Thus the effective value of the article will be 24 cents because it is assumed by other people
that 24 cents is the true value. The effective value could be charactorized by saying that for
all intents and purposes, this object is worth 24 cents.
Hans: The individual value and the cost are two different things. And the social value is not the cost which a
non-cap[italist would incur. These are some basic misunderstandings which should not be there this late in the
course.
First Message by Hippie is [91].
Question 208 is 217 in 1995ut, 241 in 1996sp, 239 in 1996ut, 292 in 1997WI, 357 in
1997sp, 355 in 1997ut, and 597 in 2007SP:
Question 208 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?
[775] Sinbad: I think Marx is saying that with the introduction of machinery the capitalist
can produce more in a 12 hour working day, but with this increased production he still pays
the worker the same wage. The worker puts his labor-power into the articles produced and it
reaches a point where the necessary labor-time is expended and every hour or labor beyond
that is surplus. So the laborer is not working longer or harder than before but he is being
used unjustly for profit or gain by the capitalist.
Hans: Yes.
Next Message by Sinbad is [879].
[782] Alex: The machinery that is introduced, changes the ratio of necessary labor to
surplus labor, by increasing the productivity of labor. The way that the worker is hurt by this
is that he or she receives the same wages while the producer receives the extra surplus value
created in the addition of machinery. The worker is exploited by the shift of necessary labor
294 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
to surplus labor. Although the worker may not be working harder or longer, it seems the
wage that he/she should be receiving should be higher, after the introduction of machinery.
Hans: Yes.
Next Message by Alex is [875].
[784] Tsunami: The worker is exploited because the capitalist reaps the fruits of the
worker’s labors. with the introduction of machine technology, the capitalist sells his goods
above their individual value but below their social value and keeps the subsequent profits for
himself. although the worker may not be working harder or longer hours, that worker does
not share in the profits of his or her increased productivity, and that is why the worker is
exploited.
Hans: Yes. But don’t call it profits, say the worker does not share in the benefits of his or her increased productivity.
Next Message by Tsunami is [838].
[791] Telemark: The gap between capatalist and worker becomes ever greater under such
circumstances. As the capitalist continues to curtail the necessary labour time, income inequality
will simply get worse with time. In standard economic thought it could be explained
as this. The capitalist would be recieving increasing scale of economies and the workers a
constant return to scale, if not a decreasing scale of return. I will explain how. Inanimate
production processes are made and used to increase production and decrease costs. If labour
wages are a major expeniduture (which it usually is in labour intensive industries) for X or
Y to be produced then, to cut costs means to cut workers. This, if not exploitation, would
at least have drastic consequences on the lives and families of individual workers affected
by such an occurance. Even if they continued to work for the same time, if they don’t get
more money, then in most industrialing economies they are not living as well as before. This
stagnation over time sets the workers behind the growth which is occuring.
Hans: Here you are assuming inflation. In Marx’s time, under the gold standard, prices did not rise but prices fell
with increasing productivity.
But the question was: even if the standard of living of the worksers remains the same, but productivity increases,
this means the workers are excluded from benefitting from these increases in productivity.
Lastly on page 438 Marx mentions the possiblity of simultaneously prolonging the workers
day along with increasing productivity. Which makes worse the items mentioned above.
In the few readings I have read on the Industrial Revolution this is exactly what happened.
Hans: Good point.
Next Message by Telemark is [899].
[795] Chance: This is an interesting question and probably has many different sides and
issues within it. However, I wish to take it from only one point of view. I am assuming
that the market is demanding more, therefore machinery is introduced. If machinery is
introduced, more will be produced than before. Hence, the owner will reap more “income”
simply because he or she is selling more of the commodity. In other words, the owner will
have an increase in lifestyle. The worker on the other hand, will not receive an increase in
lifestyle corresponding to the increase in sales. Even though he may not be required to work
harder or longer, he is not gaining any benefit from the increase. He or she is being exploited
because the end production has changed, an increase, and yet the worker recieves little or no
benefit. His or her lifestyle does not increase in proportion to the increase in yield.
Hans: Yes.
Next Message by Chance is [906].

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 295
[815] Titania: The introduction of machinery increases the exploitation of the worker
even if he does not have to work harder and longer than before because the laborer has no
choice as to how is completes his work. With a machine, he is seperated from his goodcommodity.
If the worker is made to labor with a machine he could be being exploited by
depriving himself of his love for his job. He should have to opportunity to make his good
however he chooses. It is his perogative how he chooses to work (or at least it should be.)
The value of the good will be just the same of others because if he chooses to work with his
hands, those working with machines will make even more than usual...the two will even out.
And as long as the value is the same as others, the price will be the same, and comsumers
will have no reason to discriminate between goods. In theory, the owner of the company
should not care because the good is selling just as it normally would. If the worker makes
a consciensious decision to produce less (because he likes to work with his hands opposed
to a machine) and he is willing to accept the consequences for that choice (ie lower wage or
lower protion of the profit from profit sharing), then society should be ok with that.
Hans: Good point: work becomes more reglemented and the worker has less control over the work process. At
least this is how modern machines are built. It need not be this way.
Next Message by Titania is [916].
[823] Chp: Machinery replaces the labor that used to be done by the worker. The introduction
of machinery requires only that the worker turn the machine on in order for the work
to be done. Machines are often more efficient and productive than humans, so the business
owner can pay the employee that turns on and monitors the machine the same amount as he
did before and increase his productivity. The worker may not feel that he has been exploited,
but he has because it is easier for the employer to find workers that can simply turn on and
off a machine than it is for them to invest in training personnel and paying them the wages
neccesary to keep production at a level comparable to that of the machine.
Hans: Excellent point: the worker is in a sense deprived of his skills. In the long run, this de-skilling will also be
felt in the wages.
First Message by Chp is [260].
[835] Scarlett: With the introduction of the machinery, the worker is exploited even
further, because he is recieving an even smaller proportion of the value that he produces.
The worker is the one who is creating the value by using his own labor, but it is the capitalist
who reaps the benefits. It is not necessarily that the worker is worse off, but that someone
else is getting better off because of his labor.
Hans: Ok.
Next Message by Scarlett is [859].
[839] Stalin: I think that the introduction of machinery lets the owner increase productivety,
which puts more money in his pocket, and can therefore either replace the worker or
not share his new gained wealth with him/her.
Hans: Ok.
Next Message by Stalin is [840].
[848] Vida: The introduction of machinery tends to increase the productivity levels for the
capitalist, which in turn produce profits. The accumulation of these profits helps to further
lopside the distribution of wealth. In essence, the gap beetween the haves and the have nots
grows wider at the expense of the have nots for the benefit of the haves.
Hans: This also makes the haves more powerful compared to the have nots.
Next Message by Vida is [964].
296 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
[849] Pegasus: The introduction of machinery increases the exploitation of the worker
because it changes the ratio of neccessary labor to surplus labor. Even if the worker is
apparently no worse off than before, he is not benefitting from the increase in suplus labor.
The capitalist is reaping the profits without sharing them. This extra surplus labor is created
by the increase in efficiency introduced by machines. It would be fair if the worker could
partake in this increase in surplus by getting higher wages for instance. The introduction of
machines also increases the exploitation of the worker in that he gets less control over his
work process. That is, less choice in how to perform his work.
Hans: Yes.
Next Message by Pegasus is [947].
[941] Cmanson: The introduction of machines would exploit the worker by forcing the
capitalist to enact a stricter work environment. The capitalist has spent a great deal of money
on the machinery and he does not want them to be idle. The machinery would also allow
people who were not able to produce the product by hand to now come into the market place
and produce this product. This would cause the previously skilled laborer to be just another
worker.
Hans: Ok.
Next Message by Cmanson is [942].
Question 212 is 243 in 1996ut, 297 in 1997WI, 368 in 1998WI, 369 in 1999SP, 457 in
2000fa, 484 in 2001fa, 597 in 2004fa, 550 in 2005fa, 699 in 2010fa, and 719 in 2011fa:
Question 212 Does the continual striving by the capitalists to lower the value of their products
contradict our understanding that they care only interested in value, not use-value?
[831] Johny: Yes, in some respects it is very logical. If a capitalist tries to continually
lower their prices then there will be a constant effort to increase productivity of labor, which
also cheapens the worker himself. Marx believes that one will use improved machinery for
himself and the worker will always be where he or she is. But this is not true, no matter what
the use-value is, one will still make money off of the value or they would not be in business.
Also, if the company succeeds, then the workers will also benefit from their success. One
might be compensated by raise or promotion. They will also be happy that they still have a
job.
Hans: You could post that as a joke to the list:
Q: How does machinery make a worker happy?
A: They are happy that they still have a job.
Next Message by Johny is [944].
Question 214 is 223 in 1995ut, 247 in 1996sp, 245 in 1996ut, 298 in 1997WI, and 733 in
2011fa:
Question 214 What is the difference between the value (resp. price) of labor-power and the
wage?
[904] Translat: Labor power could be compared to some with a skill. You could go to a
perspective client and say, I am a registered professional and to complete this job I will need
$350.00 and two weeks. Therefore, they have sold their labor power. Wage is when your
employer says you will be making $10.00 per hour no matter what is produced.

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 297
Hans: This is not Marx’s definition of labor power. Please respond: what is Marx’s definition of labor power?
Only after you got this right will it make sense to try to answer this question.
(datestring)Wed, 1 Mar 1995 19:06:53 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) I am confused. If labor
power is not as stated above, is it the concept of the labor force. We all have labor to
contribute therefore we are the labor power?
Hans: Look up the answers to Question 59.
Next Message by Translat is [905].
[944] Johny: The labor power is not paid for the labor power itself. It is paid for the “labor
in which this labor power is realized.” The theory of wage is that wage is paid for labor. But
instead they are paid by the hour. This means they are not paid for the labor power, they are
paid for the labor that was completed.
Hans: I’m not quite convinced that you understand it.
Next Message by Johny is [945].
Question 215 Why is the laborer unable to give his labor an independent existence?
[789] Vida: The laborer is unable to give his labor an independent existence because in
order for his labor to achieve independent existence he would be selling a commodity and
not his labor. In order for labor to perform as a commodity it has to exist before it is sold
and be exchange as such in the market; however labor itself cannot be exchanged. If the
case was so that labor could be exchanged then labor would come to replace the exchange of
products that derive value from labor. Labor cannot function as a commodity as we know it.
The potential for labor it what is brought to the market. The labor is not created until after it
has performed; therefore exchangibility of labor is not possible.
Hans: Yes. Very good.
Next Message by Vida is [847].
[844] Civic: The laborer cannot give his labor an independent existence because labor
cannot be a commodity. Labor is both produced and consumed simultaneously. It is not
something which is produced in order to be exchanged. Labor is also the element which
gives commodities their value. Therefore this labor cannot itself have value. This is what
Marx referred to as an “absurd tautology”. The example which best illustrates this was that
gravity cannot have weight, it is what gives things weight. If we look at labor, this is not
something that can be separated from the actual act of the effort of the labor process. Thus
it is inherently linked to the process. However, once the process begins, the labor no longer
belongs to the laborer, it is now endowed as part of the exchange agreement. Labor is how
we measure value, but it cannot contain value itself.
Hans: You are arguing that labor itself cannot be bought and sold. The Question was looking at the next step:
why can the worker not convert his labor into something that can be bought and sold (this is what I meant by the
“independent existence”), but has to sell his labor power?
(datestring)Mon, 27 Feb 1995 08:30:05 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) I think you’re asking
why labor cannot be converted into something that can be bought and sold or in other words
a commodity. It is because of the nature of labor. In actuality the laborer is only selling a
promise to perform. This labor does not exist until after it is actually performed and because
of this is not not meet the requirements of a commodity exchange agreement. Thus the labor
298 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
cannot have this independent existence because it cannot be separated from the actual effort
of performing the task. Thus it cannot be sold independently.
Hans: The laborer cannot convert his labor into something which can be sold because he does not have access to
the necessary means of production.
(datestring)Wed, 1 Mar 1995 07:48:34 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) I wanted to attempt this
question one more time because of what I was reading in chapter 25 in regards to our final
paper. On R775:1 Marx stated that “the artisan therefore either produces commodities in
isolation and independently of other people, or sells his labor power as a commodity because
he lacks the means to produce independently”. So the reason that laborer cannot give his
labor an independent existence is because he cannot produce commodities on his own.
Hans: Exactly. This is the answer I wanted, but there seems to be a lot of resistance, people do not want to make
themselves aware that they are deprived of access to the means of production.
Message [844] referenced by [897], [901], and [905]. Next Message by Civic is [845].
[846] Ann: In order for labor to have an independent existence it we need to become a
commodity. To sell living labor would defy the law of value, therefore it is not possible to
give labor an independent existence. This distinction is needed because it is the quantity of
human labor necessary to produce the commodity that determines the value of a commodity.
Hans: You sound as if workers don’t sell their labor but their labor power because they do not want to “defy the
law of value.”
(datestring)Sat, 25 Feb 1995 14:57:39 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) Would it be correct to
disregard the law of value in this particular question?
Hans: Yes. I see the law of value as the result arising from the individual actions behind the backs of the individuals.
Individuals don’t take an oath to adhere to the law of value or anything like that. Therefore: don’t assume the
law of value but explain how it comes about.
Would it be more correct if I said that labor cannot be given an independent existence
because it cannot be exchanged?
Hans: No, the causality is the other way: labor cannot be exchanged because it cannot be given an independent
existence.
Labor power needs to be enacted before it can be created.
Hans: I don’t get what you mean with this. Was your switch from labor to labor power intentional?
(datestring)Tue, 28 Feb 1995 10:50:03 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) I am meaning by this
that labor is not created until after it is performed. No my switch was not intentional. I
should have stated it simply as labor.
Hans: Back to previous posting:
So therefore it cannot be exchanged and given an independent existence.
Hans: Those written exchanges sometimes become more arduous than necessary. You had half the answer I was
looking for when you wrote at the very beginning: “In order for labor to have an independent existence its needs
to become a commodity.” The Question becomes therefore: why can the laborer not produce a commodity and sell
the commodity, instead of selling his labor?
(datestring)Tue, 28 Feb 1995 10:50:03 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) A laborer cannot sell
his labor because it needs to have an independent existence. In order for labor to have an
independent existence it would need to become a commodity. In order for labor to become a
commodity it would need to have a means of exchange. It is not possible for labor to have a

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 299
means of exchange because it is not created until after it is performed. Am I closer to being
on the right track?
Hans: I am afraid not. I had written: “The Question becomes therefore: why can the laborer not produce a
commodity and sell the commodity, instead of selling his labor?” Apparently you did not read the whole question
but only the end of it, only the part: “why can the laborer not sell his labor?”
(datestring)Fri, 3 Mar 1995 12:11:17 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) The laborer cannot sell
or produce the commodity because the laborer has no access to the means of production. In
order for the laborer to sell the commodity it would need to have an exchange value. There
is no exchange value because the labor is wrapped up in the process of production. Am I
more on the right track now???
Hans: Yes. There is not one right answer to this question, but I think this is an aspect of it one should be aware of.
Next Message by Ann is [868].
[860] Frosty: The laborer is unable to give his labor an independent existence because if
labor had its own existence, the laborer would be selling a commodity instead of his labor.
Labor is not like a commodity which is first produced then brought to the market in order to
be exchanged with other commodities with equivalent values. According to Marx, labor is
brought to the market before it is even produced.
Hans: Your argument is: if the laborer were able to give his labor an independent existence, then he would not be
selling his labor power. Since he is selling his labor power, therefore, it cannot be that the laborer is able to give his
labor an independent existence.
My question now is: what it is that prevents the laborer from selling a commodity?
(datestring)Sun, 26 Feb 1995 16:15:13 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) In the commodity-market,
the worker faces the money possessor, not the labor, according to Marx.
Hans: Here Marx was taking a closer look at the exchange process in order to see whether labor was indeed what
was being exchanged. Marx said: it is not labor which comes face to face with the money possessor but the laborer.
This is how we know that he sells labor power and not a commodity, but it is not what prevents the laborer from
selling a commodity. Were he to sell a commodity he would bring it with him to the market.
The worker is selling his labor power in the market. So as soon as the labor begins, it no
longer belongs to the worker, therefore, it cannot be sold by the worker. This prevents the
laborer from selling a commodity.
Hans: “commodity” is meant here in the meaning: a product, a thing, not the labor itself, but the labor materialized
in a thing. Why can the laborer not sell a commodity instead of his labor power?
(datestring)Mon, 27 Feb 1995 18:37:40 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) I am interpreting your
last question as this: Instead of selling his labor power in the market, why can’t the laborer
sell a commodity? The labor-power of a laborer is not the same as a commodity which
is brought into the market after it has been produced to be exchanged. Labor power is
something the laborer brings before it is even created. Once the laborer sells his labor power,
it is created and the laborer can produce commodities for the capitalist. The labor is paid
after it has been consumed by the capitalist. The laborer cannot sell a commodity because
he does not bring a commodity to the market. He brings his labor power which has not been
created yet. Also, when a person goes to the market with a commodity to be exchanged, he
expects to be paid an equivalent value of his commodity at the time of exchange. But, when
the laborer goes to the market to sell his labor power, he does not get paid right away for his
labor power once it has been sold. Only when the capitalist has consumed it will the laborer
get paid.
300 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
Hans: The idea that the workers might have control over the means of production and use them to produce and sell
products, instead of standing there with their bare hands and begging for a “job”, seems very alien to you.
Next Message by Frosty is [869].
[863] Marinda: Labor is not detachable from the laborer. For labor to occur, the worker
must be present, and more than present, sweating, thinking, etc. Any other commodity is
out of my life once it is sold. Selling my labor is selling my life itself, because both my time
and my own body are sold along with the labor.
Hans: Good. (This was not the answer I had in mind, but it is a very good answer).
Next Message by Marinda is [864].
[870] Braydon: I feel that I cannot give my labor an independent existence because I am
unsure exactly what I can do until I do it or experience it. I am better at some things than
others, so I cannot decipher what value my labor would be to an employer.
Hans: The only way to do this would be to offer a commodity for sale. Then the market would determine how
well your individual labor coincides with socially necessary labor. Therefore the question is: why can the laborer
not sell a commodity, a product, to the capitalist, instead of selling his labor power?
I am not sure if this is what Marx was taking about, but I will go on to say what I picked
up from the reading. If labor existed before laborers sold it, it would then be a commodity
and Marx stated that anything that gives value cannot itself have value. We do not sell our
labor as workers we sell our labor power.
Hans: With these arguments Marx wanted to show that selling one’s labor is not an option. Either one sells a
product or one sells one’s labor power.
Next Message by Braydon is [871].
[875] Alex: The laborer is unable to give his labor an independent existence because if
he/she was able to do this then the labor would become a commodity. And if you consider
labor as a commodity then the problem arrises that “there would be no need to exchange
products which are not labor but derive their value from labor.” Marx makes the statement
that The exchange of labor would be a practical impossiblity. Labor would have a funny
characteristic about being brought to the market, and that is, unlike a normal commodity,
labor would be created the instance it was brought to the market or “it is brought to the
market before it is created.” These are some of the reasons that the laborer is unable to give
his labor an independent existence.
Hans: Ok. This is not what I was aiming for when I asked the question, but it is a good summary of the arguments
why labor cannot be traded as a commodity.
Next Message by Alex is [878].
[879] Sinbad: The laborer cannot take his labor to the market to sell it because it would
then be considered a commodity.
Hans: So what? What is wrong with considering labor a commodity?
Usually a commodity is brought to market and exchanged for other commodities based
upon the labor-value in them. Labor cannot be taken to market and exchanged for other
commodities; there is no labor-value in labor as it has not yet been expended in creating a
commodity.
Hans: This argument is a little too formalistic. You kind of say that it does not fit into Marx’s theory to treat labor
as a commodity. Well, then one might respond: Marx’s theory is wrong, he is defining his concepts too narrowly,
etc.
Next Message by Sinbad is [880].

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 301
[890] Tuan: The labor is never be able to give his labor an independent existent because
labor is not commodity that can be sold and exchanged in the market. According Marx’s
point of view, he refered it to as absurb tautology. Labor perform commdity that create the
value for commodity. Therefore, labor cannot have value as commodity which can exchange
or sold in market.
Hans: Ok.
Next Message by Tuan is [892].
[897] Sprewell: The laborer is unable to give his labor an independant existence because
doing so would cause that labor to become a commodity. The reason being that it would
then be something that existed before it was brought to market to be sold. In actuality, labor
is “brought to market before it is created”.
Hans: This is one aspect of it. See [844] for an additional aspect.
Next Message by Sprewell is [898].
[901] Dubbel: The laborer is not able to give his/her labor a independent existence because,
as Marx explains on 676:1 “If the worker were able to endow it with an independent
existence, he would be selling a commodity not labor.” The labor would have to exist before
it could be sold as a commodity. Therefore as you explained in your summary that the exchange
of labor is impossible. Labor does not have the exchange-value as does a commodity.
Labor is what creates the commodity after the labor is done. Labor gives value to the object
but labor itself is not the exchangeable unit in the market.
Hans: Yes. This is one possible answer, and it is formulated very well. But see [844] for another aspect of it.
First Message by Dubbel is [15].
[905] Translat: Labor is like air, it is not a tangible item. It is reliant upon someone or
something else. It is not like a rock that you can hold and exchange. It has no “existence”
on its own power.
Hans: Yes. Good formulation. See [844] for another aspect of this question.
Next Message by Translat is [965].
[907] Chance: As Marx states, “if the worker were able to endow it with an independent
existence, he would be selling a commodity, and not the labour.” The important point to
remember here is the fact that labor is what gives the commodity its value. Commodities are
valued and measured by the amount of labor-power they contain. This labor-power by itself
cannot be exchanged independent of the commodity wherein the labor-value is contained.
Therefore, labor cannot be a commodity. It was never meant to be a commodity. I like the
remarks of civic relating the example of gravity. I think it illustrates the point in different
terms. How nice it would be if labor-power existed and could be sold as a commodity. I
would like to sell labor independent of producing a commodity. I’d be rich!
Hans: You mean, if you could sell your labor instead of having to sell your labor-power.
Can you elaborate a little on your sentence; labor was never meant to be a commodity?
Next Message by Chance is [963].
[908] Mikey: A laborer has no commodity to sell if it is just himself. But if you give
the laborer raw materials then he can put forth his labor that will produce a commodity that
could be sold on the market. The commodity is were you get the value not from the labor
himself. Labor does not exist until a commodity is produced and sold on the market.
Hans: Good. This is the answer I was looking for. It is not only raw matrials but also means of production. The
laborer cannot sell a commodity because he is barred access to the means of production.
Next Message by Mikey is [909].
302 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
[916] Titania: Because his labor his the physical manifestation of h i s muscles. If he gave
his labor an independent existance (meaning it didn’t need to come from his muscles) then it
wouldn’t be his labor. (This is the simplest and most surface example.) The laborer is unable
to to give his labor an independent existance because he is not capable of making goods on
his own. Even if the laborer went out and bought all the materials to make something, he
could not give it an independent existance because the materials had to be made by someone
else. He would have to t o t a l l y make something on his own (ie to make a chair, plant the
seed, grow the tree, cut down the tree, carve the wood and put the pieces together.) If the
worker is unable to work by himself, he must work for someone else who has the materials
he needs to produce.
Hans: In the framework of the LTV, all labors count as equal, therefore this does not play such a role.
But I have one question on this: I once saw an episode of the “Twilight Zone” in which
one man loved money so much that he sold years off his life. He sold them to an older man
who was given the ability to do whatever he liked (since he has the energy of a young person
again.) In this example, could the young man’s years of life be a commodity? and could
the labor incorporated his those years of life be considered to have an independent existance
since he was able to sell them?
Hans: Yes, this is a good example what it would mean that labor had an independent existence. Then you can ask,
as in your first paragraph, is this the old man’s labor or the young man’s labor? I would say it isthe old man’s labor,
the old man bought the labor from the young man.
Next Message by Titania is [919].
[917] Zaskar: The laborer is unable to give his labor an independent existence because
the labor is incorporated in the commodity that he or she produces. The labor does not
exist independent from the commodity. Labor itself cannot be considered a commodity.
A person’s labor power might contain elements that are exchangeable or contain value. A
person’s knowledge and abilities may be worth something or have value but his labor does
not independently. The commodity produced by his or her labor is what contains value.
Hans: yes. labor in isolation is nothing, it must be materialized in a product, and it needs means of production for
that.
Next Message by Zaskar is [920].
[924] Ida: The laborer is unable to give his labor an independent existence because labor
would have to exist before it is sold. Therefore, the worker would be selling a commodity
and not labor. The reason a laborer must sell labor rather than a commodity is because
that laborer doesn’t own capital to produce the commodity. The laborer can only sell his
labor to help produce the commodity. Otherwise, the laborer would be a capitalist. Labor
is created the moment it is brought to the market, not like a commodity which is produced
then brought to the market for exchange. Therefore, a laborer cannot give his labor an
independent existence.
Hans: Ok.
First Message by Ida is [45].
[925] Eddie: The laborer is unable to give his labor an independent existence because
when a commodity is sold in the market, there must be a product that can be bought. There
must be something physical there that can be purchased. Labor is brought to market before
it is created. So this means that labor is essentially not a commodity. I also feel that (aside

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 303
from what Marx wrote) that for an independant laborer to give his labor an independant existance
he/she would have to have the labor strength (extra laborers) or capital (machines) to
produce enough work to make the independant worker independent. So the answer is no...an
independant worker would need more help to make commodities which can be bought and
sold in the market..
Hans: Yes, good point. He needs access to the means of production and also must be able to cooperate with others.
This can no longer be commodity production.
Next Message by Eddie is [957].
[938] Stxian: When Marx says that the laborer is unable to give his labor an independent
existence, he is trying to explain that labor is not like a commodity which is first produced
in order to exchange, and then brought to market where it must exchange with other commodities,
in fact, labour is not creasted the moment it is brought to the market. It is bought
to the market before it is created; The way I interpreate it a little more on this is that I think
in a capitalist society, laborer is like macinery, land, rent, capital and labor, they are all
means of production and they are linked together by the system. consider this example, if
a laborer controls his labor’s independent existence, what if the commodity and service his
labor produced is no use to the society and market as a whole, then, his labor losses its use
value and exchange value and his labor represented nothing more than a waste of time. In
a capitalist society we are living in today, the market mechanism and the need of society
requires the laborer and his labor work together with other things (land, capital, machinery
etc...) in order to gain certain exchange value for the product or commodity it produces, this
is almost like in a perfect competition, a individual firm can not control and decide the price
of their product, they have to go with the market price which is set by the industry, which is
according to the public demands and competition within the industry.
Hans: Yes, this is an important point: labor by itself is nothing, labor must be materialized in means of production.
This is why the situation of the laborer in today’s society is so artificial: he is separated from the means of
production.
Next Message by Stxian is [972].
[940] Yoda: As far as I understand, labor doesn’t function as a normal commodity. The
worker/labor can’t give his/her labor an independent existence because this means he/she
would be selling a commodity and not labor. Labor isn’t a commodity until it is sold in the
marketplace. Labor can’t be exchanged in the market. Labor doesn’t exist until after it has
performed its’ task
Hans: This seems to be just a paraphrase of Marx. It does not give a better understanding than Marx’s text.
First Message by Yoda is [85].
[946] Tsunami: The laborer is unable to give his (or her) labor an independent existence
precisely because labor exists only upon the exchange of its productivity upon the market.
As Marx says, labor “is brought to market before it is created.”
Hans: It seems to me here you are just repeating the definition of “not having an independent existence” but not
giving a reason for it.
Because labor in and of itself has no value, it therefore cannot take on an independent
existence from the products in which it is congealed,
Hans: Sorry my nitpicking again, but here I would almost go the other direction: The concrete meaning behind
Marx’s logical argument that labor has no value is that labor does not have an independent existence: labor alone,
i.e., labor not incorporated in a product, is nothing.
304 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
it cannot exist apart from the exchange products which are not labor but whose value is
derived from labor; this is why the laborer is unable to give labor an independent existence.
Hans: You are trying to be class conscious, don’t you? Then you should mention here that the laborer cannot give
his labor an independent existence because he is separated from the means of production.
(datestring)Sun, 5 Mar 1995 21:43:05 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) Labor comes into existence
when its productivity is exchanged upon the market.
Hans: Sorry, I don’t get this. Labor comes into existence when the laborer performs the labor. Right?
Now Marx is not talking about the existence of labor but about the independent existence of labor, the existence
of labor independent of the laborer. Because market relations are relations between things which are separated from
their producers. If these things did not have an independent existence, then they would not relate to each other on
the market, but then the people to whom these things were attached would relate directly with each other.
Labor cannot be given an independent existence by the laborer because labor alone has
no value. It is only when a laborer uses his labor power to produce a product that that labor
is assigned a value and is exchangeable on the market. That labor by itself has no value
forms the base for Marx’s argument that labor cannot exist independently.
Hans: Here is my reading on the relationship between the independent existence of labor and value: Labor has no
independent existence, only labor which has been worked into goods has such an independent existence. This is
why it is an illusion to think the worker exchanges his labor on the market. And this is why Marx distinguishes
between value and labor. Value is labor materialized in a product.
Labor cannot exist apart from the exchange products which are not labor but whose value
is derived from labor: insofar as the laborer is separated from the means of production, he is
unable to give his labor an independent existence.
Hans: Right.
Next Message by Tsunami is [949].
[947] Pegasus: The reason why the laborer is unable to give his labor an independent
existance is because he does not have access to the means of production. Labor is tied to
the production process. Therefore, it has no exchange value. Labor has no value until it has
been used to create commodities. It is therefore that Marx points to the fact that it is absurd
to talk about the price of labor.
Hans: Good.
Next Message by Pegasus is [951].
[950] Oj: The laborer is unable to give his labor a independent existence because if a
laborer were to be giving labor independence he would be selling a commodity instead of
the labor that was put into it. Commodity is something that must be taken to a store were it
can be exchanged for other commodities. Labor is not exchanged for other commodities it
becomes labor before it hits the market.
Hans: What?
A laborer would be selling a commodity if he/she were to give it a independant existence.
Next Message by Oj is [952].
[989] Ghant: The laborer is unable to give his labor and independent existence because
the labor can not manifest itself in an exchangeable way, except through the commodities
which it produces. Even if the labor were able to exist independently, the laborer would then
again be selling a commodity.
Hans: But somehow, in the sentence to which you are apparently referring, Marx seems to say that it would be
better if he could sell a commodity. Why?

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 305
Marx makes a definite assertion, that labor is not a physical object, as commodites must
be. And that hence, labor can not be produced for the purpose of exchange, taken to the
market and sold. He also states that labor is brought to market prior to its own existence.
Next Message by Ghant is [990].
[1010] Slrrjk: Labor cannot exist independently from the laborer because labor is not a
commodity. Labor is what creates a commodity and gives value to it and it has no value
unless it is part of the production process of a commodity.
Hans: What?
In order to exist independently labor would have to be able to be exchanged. This is not
possible because labor is brought to the market to create something (a commodity) it is not
something that has already been created prior to being brought to the market as a commodity
is. Since labor must be part of the production process it cannot exist independently from the
laborer. Laborers resort to selling their labor because they lack the means for production;
they cannot produce commodities on their own so they must sell their labor.
Hans: the whole purpose of the argument that labor is not a commodity is to come to the conclusion that the laborer
is not selling his labor. Shat is he selling?
Next Message by Slrrjk is [1011].
[1020] Ledzep: The laborer is a laborer because he can be nothing else. He is forced into
being a laborer because he cannot give his labor an indendent existence. He lacks the means
to do so, so he must exchange his labor in the labor market... before it is even created!
Hans: Right.
Next Message by Ledzep is [1021].
[1029] Stalin: I think the reason is that the laborer does not have access to the means of
production. The labor is tied to the production process and has no exchange value. Labor
has no value until it creates commodities. The laborer becomes enslaved to his job.
Hans: Ok.
First Message by Stalin is [333].
Question 216 is 554 in 2003fa and 610 in 2004fa:
Question 216 Marx’s parenthetical remark “yet another version of the social contract” is
a clear dismissal. He does not go into more detail here because he said it so many times.
Explain the argument which he usually makes against the “contrat social.”
[914] Vansmack: I think that when Marx repeatedily uses the phrase “social contract”
as somewhat of a satire towards the way that society goes about its economic affairs. I
don’t quite understand the fullness of what Marx is trying to say about society, but I think
that he generally thinks that society has been set up with social contract restrictions that
hold it down. Noted for his class conflict theory, Marx was a brilliant sociologist. Through
conflict that will always exist in the social contract laborers and producers will always have
their well-defined roles, and thus be in conflict with each other all of the time. In a highly
industrailized society the “social contract” can give way to a caste system thus eliminating
social mobility. I think that this is what Marx i trying to say in his frequent use of the phras,
but I am not totally sure about it.
Hans: You are picking interesting questions and it’s really too bad that you did not participate more in the class.
You would have learned a lot and I think you would have appreciated it. The present question has to do with the
306 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
social {1} versus social {2} issue which you answered in an original but slightly nonstandard way in [438] The social
contract denies the existence of social {1} and reduces everything to social {2} .
Next Message by Vansmack is [915].
Question 217 is 253 in 1996sp, 304 in 1997WI, 377 in 1998WI, 378 in 1999SP, 495 in
2001fa, 534 in 2002fa, 555 in 2003fa, 611 in 2004fa, 563 in 2005fa, 638 in 2007SP, 618
in 2007fa, and 744 in 2011fa:
Question 217 Why can the unequal exchange between worker and capitalist not be explained
by the fact that the worker represents living labor, and the capitalist objectified
labor?
[859] Scarlett: The unequal exchange between worker and capitalist cannot be explained
in the context of the difference between living labor and objectified labor, because the exchange
is unequal in both situations.
Hans: What do you mean here by “both situations”?
(datestring)Wed, 1 Mar 1995 10:11:55 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) It doesn’t matter if the
labor actually put into producing the commodity is equal to its “value,” or if the value is less
because the “social value” is less, because the laborer will not recieve the amount he would
have recieved if he were exchanging directly. He is not being compensated for all of his
labor, and whatever is left goes to the capitalist in the form of profits.
Hans: Good.
Now this is the earlier submission again:
That the actual labor put into a commodity is not necessarily the same as the objectified
labor, or societal value is irrelevant to the worker/capitalist exchange.
Hans: I don’t quite understand this sentence either, but it seems to be close to what Marx is saying: Value is not
determined by the actual dead labor incorporated in the product, but by the labor necessary to reproduce the product
under socially average conditions. I think that Marx’s argument is not very good here.
(datestring)Wed, 1 Mar 1995 10:11:55 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) I don’t really understand
the argument here either. If the laborer is being paid hourly, and value is determined by the
number of hours necessary for the commodity to be produced, it would appear that the
worker would always get what he deserved. I think Marx’s point, however, is that the hourly
wage is always less than the value he creates in that hour. The capitalist is always getting
more out of the exchange than he puts in, and the worker gets shortchanged.
Hans: Yes, exaclty. Although the hourly pay seems to suggest otherwise, part of every hour is unpaid labor. This
is the main point. The stuff with the living and objectified labor is just some extra logical fluff on top of that, it is
not so important.
back to the original submission:
Specifically, because the worker will always get less than he/she produces. The wage that
the worker recieves for labor is always less than the magnitude of value of the commodity
produced by the laborer.
Hans: Here you are merely restating the fact whose explanations we were scrutinizing.
Next Message by Scarlett is [910].
[880] Sinbad: The living labor is the amount of labor required to produce the commodity
and it is not the objectified labor which determines the commodities’ value. If the worker

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 307
represented the living labor in the commodity then that would be the magnitude of the commodity’s
value.
Hans: Until here I thought you meant the right thing. But then you write:
But this is not the value given to the commodity by the capitalist. There is value added to
the living labor which creates a surplus or profit to the capitalist.
Hans: You seem to mean: living labor = the direct labor, while objectified labor = the value added by machinery
and materials. First of all: according to the labor theory of value, the value transferred from machinery and materials
cannot be the source of profits. All it can do is pay for the machinery and materials, but not for more than that.
Secondly: This is not what is meant by the opposition living labor – objectified labor in this question. We are here
in the exchange: the worker gets less money than his labor represents. The question was: does this come from the
fact that the capitalist’s money represents objectified labor, while the laborer only can give living labor for it.
Next Message by Sinbad is [936].
[949] Tsunami: The unequal exchange between worker and capitalist cannot be explained
by the fact that the worker represents living labor, and the capitalist objectified labor because
objectified labor is highly variable and unstable, depending upon technological change and
changes in poductivity. Nobody in society really gives a damn about objectified labor because
a commodity’s value is determined by the quanitity of living labor that was necessary
to produce it, and not by the quantity of labor that was objectified in that commodity. Given
that objectified labor amounts to nothing, using living labor vs. objectified labor in order to
explain unequal exchange between worker and capitalist would imply that the capitalist is
the loser of the two because as productivity rises, the materialized labor in the commodity
dwindles and “goes out the window,” which, in Marx’s analysis, is definitely not the case.
By emphasizing living labor, Marx takes into account the impact of technological change
on extra surplus value and worker exploitation, which a materialized labor analysis would
ignore.
Hans: Here all the sins which I committed in my Annotations are staring at me.
(datestring)Sun, 5 Mar 1995 21:27:15 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) Dr. Ehrbar, I am puzzled
by your reply. Do you want me to rewrite my answer and resubmit it? Sincerely, Tsu.
Hans: No—unless you can come up with a better explanation than the one I gave in my Annotations.
Next Message by Tsunami is [971].
Question 218 Into which contradictions would one run if one would pursue the theory that
labor has a value?
[910] Scarlett: The most obvious contradiction in trying to claim that labor has a value
stems from the way Marx has defined value. Marx’s says that value is created from objectified
labor. There is no way to measure the “socially necessary” amount of labor to produce
an hour of labor. Secondly, actual labor does not exist independently of the worker. The
worker cannot produce his labor and then go and sell it in the marketplace. He must offer to
sell his labor before it exists.
Hans: yes, these are the two arguments which marx makes (which does not mean that I understand them, i tried to
make sense of them a little bit in the Annotations).
Next Message by Scarlett is [964].
[952] Oj: Problems one would run into would be that labor is not a commodity. A
commodity is something that can be bought or sold, which is a value. The labor that goes into
308 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
that commodity does not have value in itself, however it does set a value for its commodity.
Labor value is nowhere to be found in social value in the capitalist system.
Hans: I am a little puzzled about your last sentence, but the rest is ok.
Next Message by Oj is [954].
[978] Makarios: First, to say that labor has a value is to imply that it can be sold as a
commodity in the market. This isimpossible because the laborer cannot separate his labor
from himself. That would be the same as saying one could create their labor and then take
it to the market and sell it. The laborer has to go to the market first, and offer to supply his
labor there, before it exists.
Second, value is defined as the embodiment of labor within commodities. It is objectified
labor. Labor cannot be objectified in itself. Therefore, it’s impossible to quantify the amount
of labor necessary to produce labor.
Hans: Ok.
Next Message by Makarios is [979].
Question 219 How can a careful look at the exchange process and the capitalistic production
process show that it is actually not the labor-power but the labor which is sold by the
laborer?
[1022] Renegade: When a capitalist hires a worker he purchases the worker’s ability to
labor i.e., his/her labor power, or potential to labor. When the laborer starts to apply himself/herself
to the means of production, his/her labor actualizes. The resulting commodity is
an objectification of his/her labor. In value terms, the resulting commodity contains not only
the supposed replacement costs of labor (i.e., wages), but also a value above and beyond this
(surplus value). If one says that the value of labor power is equal to wages, one can also
say that the total value created is equal to the total labor performed. Therefore, the capitalist
purchases the total labor yet he only pays for the customary replacement cost of the labor
power!
Hans: This is right but it is not an answer to the question.
Next Message by Renegade is [1023].
Question 220 is 384 in 1999SP, 474 in 2000fa, and 503 in 2001fa:
Question 220 Why did the classical economists in their theories substitute value of labor
power for value of labor?
[899] Telemark: The classical economist’s assumed that they could use an “average” or
natural price to move from price of labor to value of labor. What they actually did, was
mistakenly discuss the value of labor as if it were value of labor-power and then tried to
come up with numbers which described profits and production processes. The problem then
becomes that value of labor-power must be exploited by the capitalist in order to make a
surplus value on top of what the capatalist must pay the worker to work in any same given
time period. On page 679 Marx gives an example in which the worker works 12 hours and
receives 3 shillings, yet in that same 12 hours, 6 shillings of production occurred. The first
6 hours the worker earned his wage and the other 6 hours he made money for the capitalist.
Quite convenient for the capitalist. The mainstreamers did not want to or didn’t understand

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 309
that the exploitation must come into play in their analysis being it takes place in the “real
world” in order for capatalist society to function and for their study to work out.
Hans: Good.
Next Message by Telemark is [900].
[909] Mikey: As Marx stated earlier they did it without even being aware of it. But in
doing so you don’t go into much depth in finding out the real value of labor. By doing
this they can come to and explain is quickly the value od labor, price of labor that is being
considered. This is the way most things are being explained and considered today.
Hans: I love it, because I happen to agree. Come up with something quick that looks like an explanation. This
will shut up undesired questions and also spread the impression that theory is powerless. False theory is indeed
powerless, or, say better, it helps the status quo.
Next Message by Mikey is [991].
[945] Johny: Although it makes sense that labor is being exchanged, in a way it does not.
Labor is the measure of value, but labor itself has no value. In other words, if you look at it
in a broad sense, one cannot exchange labor, only the commodity. Therefore the Classical
economist subconsciously substituted value of labor power for the value of labor.
Hans: I like this. You are using very simple language but you are describing the problem quite accurately.
Next Message by Johny is [960].
[1021] Ledzep: The classical economists are running a different system in which the
term value of labor works for their formulas and theories. Using value of labor as opposed
to value of labor power, does literally and abstractly take the power out of labor. Look at
today’s society and how the laborer generally has no power in today’s economic terms: not
much money, not much respect, not much ecucation etc. The classical economists, either
consciously or ignorantly, help take the power away from the worker by taking the word
“power” from the concept.
Hans: You answered the question: Why did the classical economists in their theories substitute value of labor for
value of labor power?
First Message by Ledzep is [276].
Question 221 is 258 in 1996sp, 257 in 1996ut, 373 in 1997ut, 544 in 2002fa, 621 in
2004fa, 573 in 2005fa, 630 in 2007fa, 642 in 2008fa, 673 in 2009fa, 758 in 2011fa, and
787 in 2012fa:
Question 221 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.
[871] Braydon: The value of labor is expressed in terms of money and determines its
necessary price. This is derived from the labor power which is calculated on certain periods
of time, which we then put a price on.
Hans: So far I thought you meant the right thing until you wrote the following sentence:
If labor power is actually worth 6 dollars, but we are being paid three, the value of labor
is 3 dollars.
Hans: Can you review that? How is the value of labor power determined? How is the value of labor derived from
the value of the labor power?
In comparing the two, the value of labor and the value of the actual product, the value
of labor is going to be less than the value of the product. This brings to mind another work
related experience. I was paid 8 dollars an hour working in sales and was expected to sell
310 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
90-100 dollars an hour to keep my productivity where it should be. I was obviously paid less
than the actual products were worth.
Hans: Answering my question:
bradydon¿ (datestring)Mon, 27 Feb 1995 15:53:31 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) bradydon¿ The value of labor
power is derived from the hours in a day bradydon¿ the laborer works and from the length of the workers bradydon¿
life. The value of labor is derived from labor power and is bradydon¿ expressed in terms of money and its necessary
price.
No, in Marx’s theory, the value of labor power does not depend on how many hours the worker works. You
seem to have some misunderstandings here.
(datestring)Mon, 27 Feb 1995 23:07:53 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) Please explain to me
what is meant by the quote “We know that the daily value of labor-power is calculated upon
a certain length of the worker’s life, and that this corresponds, in turn, to a certain length of
the working day?” You go on to say that “the worker’s life expectancy and the length of the
working day are connected.” and before it you say that these are the two factors. Is it the
length of the working day in general, wether a worker works it or not?
Hans: Oops, yes, you are right. There is a connection. The value of labor power is the reproduction costs of
labor power, and these reproduction costs depend on the whole lifetime consumption and work pattern. I think in
the quote you just gave Marx refers to the following mechanism: the longer the working day, the shorter the life
expectancy of the worker, and this affects the proportion of the workers’ lifetime which he is working, and thus
the wage he needs to be able to survive. But don’t let this confuse you. What I wanted you to write is that the
value of labor power is determined by the reproduction costs of the laborer. You take this daily reproduction cost
(and although it varies with the worker’s lifetime, it does not vary that much) and divide it by the number of hours
worked every day, and this gives you the hourly wage.
Next Message by Braydon is [968].
[889] Golfer: The value of labor is derived from the value of the labor power. I think Marx
is saying that the labor power is compensated in labor value. In other words, the capitalist
will determine what the labor value is by means of determining what the labor power is able
to produce.
Hans: No, he does not determines what the labor power is able to produce, but he asks himself: how much must the
worker get in order to continue living in his modest existence and continue to be dependent on me for his continued
livelihood. And he knows that this wage, determined by the reproduction cost of labor power, is far less than the
value the labor power produces during the day. This is what you say now:
The value of the labor is a direct portion of the value of the product. This is because
the labor expended to make the product is necessary for the product to exsist. Thus without
labor-power there is no product or value of product. If the labor-power value exceeds the
value of the product the product has no value.
First Message by Golfer is [73].
[893] Deadhead: To determine the “value of labor” you simply divide the amount of
money a worker is paid for a days worth of work by the number of hours he must work in
order to receive the full daily value of labor power. Ex. If a working day is 12 hours long
and the worker receives 12 shillings for a days work his value of labor would be 1 shilling
per hour. The “value of labor” is always lower than the value of the product of the labor.
The difference between the two being the profit the capitalist earns.
Hans: Why dio you start with a daily wage? Where does the daily wage come from?
Next Message by Deadhead is [894].
[954] Oj: The value of labor is derived from teh value of labor power in that the amount
of efficient work put into labor the more value will be attained by that labor. If an owner of

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 311
a car company were to get good hard working workers he would produce much labor power
thus creating a higher value of labor. The more power there is in your system the more value
it will consist of.
Hans: Sorry, you missed that one completely.
First Message by Oj is [39].
Question 222 is 260 in 1996sp, 387 in 1999SP, 567 in 2003fa, 623 in 2004fa, and 575 in
2005fa:
Question 222 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”?
[1024] Renegade: The value of labor power is the reproduction costs (the price of reproduction)
of the labor power i.e., wages. Whereas the value of labor is equivalent to the
value created by the labor (the price of commodities created by that labor). The value of
labor is greater than the value of labor power and this inconsitency is a major contradiction
in a capitalist mode of production. In other words, the extraction of surplus value gives rise
to the main contradiction in the capitalist mode of production. In general, prices (of commodities
and labor power) mystify the undrelying social relations of the capitalist mode of
production. They mask the process of extraction of surplus value i.e. exploitaion.
Hans: Marx argues that labor has no value, and the capitalist pays the worker full price for his commodity, the
labor power.
Next Message by Renegade is [1025].
Question 223 is 235 in 1995ut, 261 in 1996sp, 313 in 1997WI, 385 in 1998WI, 388 in
1999SP, 480 in 2000fa, 509 in 2001fa, and 644 in 2008SP:
Question 223 In Value, Price and Profit, Marx says that there is no such thing as a fair
wage. What does he mean by this?
[857] Ranger: The oscillations of the market price of wages only determines an average
price. Capitalist believe this average determines and represents a fair wage for the value
of labour. However, this average simply represents a mean average of the oscillating and
accidental prices of labour. It does not represent the value of labour. Also, capitalist believe
they can determine the value of labour through the cost of production (the cost of
reproducing a worker), but as Marx explains this is as different as a machine is from the operations
it performs (p. 678). Capitalist have substituted the value of labour with the value
of labour-power. Capitalist do not pay a wage based on the value of labour because they
have incorrectly determined it. If a capitalist did actually pay a wage based on the value of
labour, then capital would cease to exist (there would be no money for capital). It is also
important to understand that the value of a person’s labour-power varies with value of the
person’s means of subsistence. The value of labour is, therefore, not constant, but is treated
as such.
Hans: It is not a calculation error that the capitalists pay the value of labor power instead of the value of labor.
This is what the workers are forced to accept because they have no alternative.
The answer to Question 223 is at best implicit in what you wrote here.
Next Message by Ranger is [858].
312 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
[864] Marinda: I guess he means that it is not fair to buy and sell humans at all. Any wage
that still allows for profits is defined as exploitation by Marx, so those wages are unfair. As
long as “unpaid labor appears as paid” no wage can be fair.
Hans: These are three completely different reasons in three sentences. My inclination would be to think that what
you said in the first sentence was what Marx had in mind.
Next Message by Marinda is [973].
[876] Leo: Capitalists pay the value of labor performed. Rather than the value of labor.
Hans: I don’t understand what you mean. But whatever it is, it is not what Marx had in mind when he said there is
no such thing as a fair wage.
Next Message by Leo is [877].
[894] Deadhead: Marx says there is no such thing as a fair wage because a worker is
never paid the same amount for a days work as the value of the goods he produces in a day.
A true capitalist would never pay his workers the equal amount of their production because
then he would not be earning any profits. The capitalist must sell the products at a price
higher than his cost of production in order to earn a profit.
Hans: You are saying the only fair wage would be that where the worker gets as much value in his wage as he
produces, but this will never happen in capitalism. Marx went one step further. He said, whenever people have
to sell themselves, even if the wage is very high (like the baseball players), it is not a fair situation to have to sell
oneself. it is not a fair situation if excelling in basketball is the only way out of the misery, as in the movie Hoop
Dreams in the Tower Theatre.
Next Message by Deadhead is [975].
[915] Vansmack: I believe that when Marx says that there is no such thing as a fair
wage that he means that labor-value and the actual work done by the laborer can fluctuate so
rapidly that an actual fair wage can never exsist. I think that Marx is correct on this theory.
I am of the belief that basically every job makes a corporation work, and that usually the
wages that are matched to the occupations are not fair. Also, How does the wage of a worker
in a car plant in Detroit stack up to that of an assembly line worker in India, who makes
virtually pennies a day for doing the same type of job with the same labor skills involved. I
think that Marx is saying that social contracts and values come into play to muc to determine
what ia actually a fair wage.
Hans: The point about relative wages is a good one. This is not what Marx meant in WPP, but I’ll let it count.
Next Message by Vansmack is [918].
[942] Cmanson: There is no such thing as a fair wage because the worker is working far
more hours then he is getting paid for. The wage is not based on his production value but on
what the capitalist wants to pay him as a wage.
Hans: Two things wrong. (1) the capitalist does not just pay what he wants, there are objective laws determining
how much he has to pay (or say better how little he can get away with paying).
(2) Marx does not simply says prevailing wages are not fair, but he says that wages can never be fair.
(datestring)Thu, 2 Mar 1995 21:09:09 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) Am I correct in assuming
that the supply and demand situation is the objective law resulting in the lack of wage
being paid by the capitalist. Does this refer back to the target unemployment rate set by the
capitalist system?
Hans: Chapter 25 explains why there must be unemployment in capitalism. This unemployment depresses the
wage towards its minimum, the reproduction costs of the workers (value of labor power).
Would the other factor regarding wages you mentioned be the so called dangling carrot
effect of paying as much as the capitalist has to to keep the worker coming back for more?

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 313
Hans: If anything, I would call it the dangling stick effect of paying so little that the worker has to keep coming
back for more. But no, this is not what I meant by the other factor.
(datestring)Sun, 12 Mar 1995 21:18:29 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) Other factors for there
not being a fair wage would be accumulation, concentration and centralization. The forces
of these factors cause unemployment which causes surplus labor which keeps pay down
to unfair wages. The capitalists desire to obtain surplus value from his workers is another
reason why the wage is not fair for the work being performed.
Hans: I said wages +can never+ be fair. Even in the absence of those market forces, with tolerable wages, Marx
says that wages will never be fair. The answer is in the archive.
Next Message by Cmanson is [943].
[948] Nena: In a capitalist society, value, price and profit is unequal, this is part of the
characteristic of the common capitalist society, Marx explained this common situation with
a very interesting point of view, his vision of unequal (not fair) wages between value, price
and profit is connected through the capitalistic production process. As Marx states:“the value
of labor must always be less than its value-product, for the capitalist always makes laborpower
work longer tahn is necessary for the reproduction of its own value.” We know that
in a capitalist economy, producer or the capitalist is goint to charge their products as high as
society and competitors allowes him or her to do so. Because of capital is the reproduction
of making more money, the capitalist generally wants more profits while limiting the growth
of worker’s wage and fixed and variable costs. We generally lable land, machinery, rent, raw
materials etc... as a fixed cost, because they are scarace in our environment today. However,
labor is presented as variable cost, while the capitalist can not really cut down the fixed cost,
he/she is going to try to cut down variable cost in whatever way he can find. Also, by setting
higher prices and lower wages, he can create more on his own profits, and thus make himself
richer.
Hans: This is a pretty accurate description of what is going on in capitalism. Question 223 was intended to be
narrower, but I’ll let it count.
Next Message by Nena is [953].
[955] Eagle: I think he means that a worker sees his labor as being worth more than his
employer is willing to pay. The employer sets the wage and the worker has to accept it or
not take the job. The only way to make it a fair wage is to have the worker and the employer
decide together on what the worker’s labor is worth.
Hans: Your concept of fairness is based on subjective utility theory. it has its logic, but this is not what Marx was
thinking about in VPP.
(datestring)Wed, 15 Mar 1995 07:07:48 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) Marx says the cost of
a commodity can’t be higher than the cost of the labor to produce it. The value of that
commodity may not be high enough to it’s buyer to yield a wage that seems fair to the
worker. He says that labor-power is a commodity that the laborer sells to the employer and
it can’t be more than what it costs to produce the commodity. This is the basis that the wage
is set at. The labor may be worth more than the wage but the employer can’t spend more
than that amount.
Hans: This is what the employers say: we can’t pay higher wages, there is not more to be made with this product.
Don’t believe them!
Next Message by Eagle is [956].
Question 224 is 236 in 1995ut, 262 in 1996sp, 261 in 1996ut, and 314 in 1997WI:
314 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
Question 224 Why is the labor-power usually paid after it is consumed by the purchaser,and
why is it paid by the hour?
[496] Rangers: The basic reason that labor-power is usually paid after it is consumed is
to ensure the worker is bound to the capitalist. In this way, the risk of not making a profit
is lessened. The reason for paying by the hour also works on the same principle, it binds
the worker to labor of a sufficent amount of time before he can earn a sufficent amount. For
example, if I were to pay someone to paint my house, and I paid that person in advance. I
am not assured that the job will be completed by a specfic time, if at all.
Hans: Yes, this is right. (But this question will not be assigned until the week 2/6 - 3/1).
Next Message by Rangers is [721].
[788] Vida: Labor-power is usually paid for after is is consumed because the wage works
as “coercive element” to ensure that the labor-power is performed. If the labor-power was
paid before the labor-power is delivered then there is a likely chance that the labor-power
will not be performed. The reason it is paid by the hour may be that this also works as an
incentive to produce labor-power. The consumer of the labor-power may be more readily
able to coerce a laborer if they promise them a hourly rate than a daily rate or a monthly
rate. The laborer need only work one more hour to be paid the wage where as with a daily
rate the laborer would have to work a whole day in order to be paid the wage. The hourly
wage works almost as giving them a taste of the candy without giving them all of the candy.
If the candy is appealing to them they will perform in order to recieve more and more of
it. The fact that they may taste the candy every hour works as a coercive tool to keep them
performing.
Hans: Very good observation.
Message [788] referenced by [896]. Next Message by Vida is [789].
[845] Civic: The quick answer to question 224 is that this is a way that the capitalist ensures
that the labor is actually performed. Further analysis reveals that this labor relationship
is an exchange relationship where the value exists initially, but the use value is not realized
until the labor power is actually exercised.[227:2] This labor process is viewed more as the
process of delivery of the labor to the capitalist. Thus we see that the wages are paid after
delivery of the labor. Labor is not a commodity, but it is easier to imagine why the payment
is made after delivery if you think of a commodity exchange (Payment is made after the
commodity has been exchanged). This same argument holds true for the reason why labor
is paid by the hour. What the laborer is actually selling is effort. The capitalist quantifies
this effort by hourly intervals to ensure that proper completion occurs. Once this exchange
begins the mode of payment reflects the capitalist paying for what he bargained for in the
initial agreement. This assures that the capitalist is getting what he paid for because he retains
the control over the situation by paying by the hour and paying after the work has been
performed.
Hans: Very good.
Next Message by Civic is [958].
[858] Ranger: Labor-power is paid after it is consumed by the producer to insure the
purchaser. If the labor-power was paid before it was consumed the individual performing
the labor-power may not provide the actual labor-power. It is somewhat similar to sticking a
carrot out in front of a horse to inspire the horse to perform. It is paid by the hour, or other

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 315
portions, so as to continually motivate the individual providing the labor-power. This also
insures the purchaser of the labor-power.
Hans: Ok.
First Message by Ranger is [5].
[868] Ann: It is important to every producer to make sure that its commodities are being
produced. One way to ensure this is to pay the labor-power after it is consumed by the
purchaser. If you were to pay the labor-power before the finished product you are taking the
chance that it will not be completed. At every job I have held I have been paid at the end of
the two weeks I have worked. I can never remember being paid previous my working those
two weeks. Being paid at the end of the two weeks is an incentive to work because I have
not received my reward yet. If I got paid prior the two weeks I would be tempted to ask days
off and not do the job as well. Being paid by the hour is a good way to keep track of the
hours worked. People leave early some days and should not be paid for the absence.
Hans: Ok.
Next Message by Ann is [964].
[869] Frosty: When Marx wrote on the capacity of labor he wrote that their value is
expressed it its value. If the laborers capacity of labor remains unsold, there is no advantage
for the worker. The capacity of labor is nothing unless it is sold. This is the reason why
labor power is usually paid after it is consumed by the purchaser.
Hans: This cannot be the reason. There are many things which cannot be used by the seller if they are unsold, yet
they are paid at the moment of the sale and not after they are consumed by the purchaser.
As it is written in the annotations, Marx could argue that same reasons explain why laborpower
is paid by the hour.
Hans: New try:
(datestring)Mon, 27 Feb 1995 17:55:48 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) The reason why laborpower
is usually paid after it is consumed or paid hourly is because the capitalist wants to
make sure the job is done before he pays the laborer. As it is written in the annotations, this
method of payment according to labor performed is a function ensuring that the laborer will
get his work done.
Hans: yes.
Next Message by Frosty is [966].
[877] Leo: It is paid once the job is done to insure performance. It is paid by the hour to
motivate workers.
Hans: Yes.
Next Message by Leo is [970].
[878] Alex: The labor-power is usually paid after it is consumed in order to ensure that
the labor actually gets performed. If one was to pay the labor-power before it was consumed
there would perhaps be disincentives to the labor-power to perform, once the worker had
their money why should they then perform. By paying the labor-power after consumption
there is an incentive to produce, In other words if you don’t produce there will be nothing to
consume and you won’t get payed. Paying by the hour seems to be a nice small time period
by which the producer may pay, and the worker can identify with the hour, and has incentive
to work at the same pace each hour. I like the example of the dangling a carrot in front of a
mule, this is very much what the hourly wage rate is like.
Hans: Ok.
316 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
This is just an idea, I don’t know if it holds any merit. Here is another possible reason
(somewhat harsh) for the hourly wage. By paying by the hour the producer is signalling
the worker that the consumption rate can be monitored by the hour, and that if they don’t
produce (perform) every hour then they may be terminated, In other words the producer uses
the hourly wage rate almost as a threat to the worker.
Hans: This might be right.
Next Message by Alex is [969].
[886] Golfer: Labor is a raw material of a commodity. Labor comes into existance during
the make up of a commodity. The general practice is to pay labor after the commodity is
produced. This ensures the labor will be done. Labor has taken a form of hourly compensation,
because this form will enable the capitalist to exploite his wok force. If a capitalist can
force his labours to produce more in less time, and pays an hourly wage he receives surplus
labor or in other words profit. The hourly wage is a form set up to also benefit the labour, his
benefit is that he receives his money even if the commodity does not sell or sells for less than
it cost to produce. I think these are some of the reasons labor-power is paid by an hourly
wage.
Hans: Yes. Good.
Next Message by Golfer is [889].
[892] Tuan: The main reason the labor-power is usually paid after it is consumed by
purchaser is because the purchaser always worry about risk of loss if labor-power is not
complete. In my personal point of view, I will not pay any amount advance if there is no
work done because there is always happened if you pay the labor-power advance, then laborpower
will take money and go away without worry about your work. Normally, labor power
will pay by hour because it is considered as incentive or rate. If labor power do not pay by
hour but day, they will not work hard or care because they all will get equal amount of wage
regardless if you work hard or lazy in work force. In addition, labor pay by hour to help
labor to work hard and harder or if they need extra money.
Hans: Yes.
Next Message by Tuan is [895].
[896] Dubbel: I see this as the capitalist way of holding the worker to his obligation. If
the labor power was paid before the work is accomplished, then there is no way to guarantee
that the work will be accomplished. I believe that the reason for an hourly wage is for the
same purpose. This commits the worker to perform for a specific time before being paid. In
reference to [788] he or she gives a good example of the incentive the capitalist presents to
the worker to perform for a “taste of the candy.” If they want the prize they will do something
for it. The more they work the more they may earn. Overall it seems the capitalist wants to
get his moneys worth.
Hans: Yes, good.
Next Message by Dubbel is [901].
[898] Sprewell: The labor-power is usually paid after it is consumed by the purchaser
in order to ensure that the work is actually performed and performed well. There must be
incentives for the worker to perform (wages) to receive full effort from the worker. The
labor-power is paid hourly for similar reasons. The hour is an easy way to measure the effort
received from the worker. By paying by the hour and after the work has been completed the
capitalist maintains control over the labor he is purchasing.

Hans: yes.
U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 317
Next Message by Sprewell is [969].
[900] Telemark: One of the easier questions, and since I spent quite a few hours on
Chapter 25 I will answer this one. If I owned an apartment complex and rented these to
tenants on say a six month lease, I might at the first months rent ask also for a security
deposit and last months rent. In the same way the apartment owner is protecting himself so
does the capatalist. They both ensure security and “a done deal” or there not out any money
if an agreement is not carried out to completion. So the owner of the manufacturing company
pays his workers after the work has been completed and the owner of the apartment complex
gets the last months rent and a security deposit so that tenants don’t just up and move one
day. The hourly pay is simply a quantitative way of reimbursing or paying the labourer what
he has earned I believe. It became the standard, just as the meter, or foot became standards
of measurements.
Hans: Yes, good.
First Message by Telemark is [203].
[906] Chance: To make this question simple, the labor-power is paid after it is consumed
by the purchaser to ensure two things. First, to ensure delivery of the product, and second, to
keep the labor-power motivated. If labor-power were paid before the purchaser received the
goods/services, the labor-power may not uphold his or her end of the bargain. Furthermore,
if the labor-power is paid before the work is completed, the labor-power loses motivation to
perform the work. From my experience as a landscaper, doing hard manual labor, I know
if I would have been paid beforehand, I would have had a very difficult time continuing to
perform the labor. Not being paid beforehand kept me motivated to finish the job or deliver
the product to the purchaser so that I could receive payment. In addition, I believe the
arguement for paying by the hour is simply a matter of being able to measure input versus
output. Labor-power is paid in measurable chunks. If you work one hour, you will get paid
for one hour. It establishes expections and standards between the payer and the worker.
Those persons I know who work for salary, which is actually an estimate of hours worked
in a period of time, lose motivation to work hard each hour. They feel they will get paid
whether or not they work that hour. Such does not hold true for the hourly paid worker.
Hans: Excellent. This is the kind of answer which only real-life experience can give.
Next Message by Chance is [907].
[918] Vansmack: I think that the reason why the why the labor-power is paid after it
is consumed, and then paid by the hour are both because of self-serving reasons by the
purchaser. In these days where it is hard for many people to find a job, most people will be
at the mercy of the employer or the one responsible for purchasing your services. With the
producer playing the intimidation role, the laborers oftentimes will take the opposite role or
the timid standpoint. This process is an economic class conflict model. When the laborer is
the so-called “boss” he or she will dictate the way things are done. This is why the worker
has to prove him or herself by doing work before the payment is made to them for their
services. Hourly wages also help the purchaser because it make the worker stay longer thus
getting more work done it they don’t want to get fired.
Hans: Good thinking.
First Message by Vansmack is [42].
318 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
[920] Zaskar: Labor-power is usually paid after it is consumed for a very practical reason,
it is very difficult to keep a worker motivated to produce when payment has been made. I
think of the old camel master stories of India where a traveler is told to make sure not
to pay the master until the trip is made. Many a traveler has been abondoned half-way
through the trip for paying before the journey was complete. I believe that this concept
applys to all types of labor. Quality and desire often seems to be a lacking ingredient when a
laborer already carries his reward. To ensure delivery of the expected service or commodity
a consumer should withhold payment until after delivery. Labor is paid by the hour because
it is a consistent way to monitor the effort and toil imput by a worker ( as related to other
workers.)
Hans: Good examples.
Next Message by Zaskar is [963].
[922] Ida: I would say the labor-power is paid after it is consumed by the purchaser is
similar to why the commodity is paid for after it has been exchanged. The same idea exists
for both. Labor-power is not paid for until it has been completed and the capitalist is satisfied
with the work the laborer has done. We look at today’s jobs, people are very seldom paid in
advance, as employees we are paid after we have completed the task/job we agreed to do.
The capitalist doesn’t want to pay for anything that hasn’t been done. The same goes for the
reason labor-power is paid by the hour. The capitalist is able to ensure satisfactory quality
of the commodity the laborer is producing etc. This also gives the capitalist the control over
the worker. This ensures the laborer to do a satisfactory job or else the laborer won’t get
paid.
Hans: ok, that’s it.
Next Message by Ida is [924].
[923] Eddie: The labor-power usually gets paid after it is consumed by the purchaser is
to ensure that the worker actually does the work. I think this is a very simple situation when
the capitalists is so ensumed in his wealth that he can pay right after the work is done.
Hans: ensumed?
If we look at the beginning of a capital situation, a capitalists will pay a worker after a
purchaser has bought or consumed a product, because this will be when he will be willing
to part with his profit. A capitalist is a very greedy person. A capitalist will want more
and more. This is also the reason that a laborer will be paid hourly. The purchaser will at
the least buy an item once every hour. This will ensure that the capitalist still makes more
money and the laborer gets his hourly wage.
Hans: I didn’t get your argument with the hourly wage.
(datestring)Wed, 8 Mar 1995 12:09:15 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) What I was trying to
say was that when a capital situation first starts out a capitalist will need to pay his hourly
wage after he sells the commodity. At this moment he will have enough money to pay the
wage. After the capitalists is so wealthy he will not need to wait until he gets paid for the
commodity, he can pay the hourly wage after the work is done. The only hold over the
worker the capitalist will have is to pay after the work is done even though the capitalist will
have the money at the moment before the work is done.
Hans: I understand now what you mean but I don’t agree that this is a factor. “Hourly wage” does not mean that
the worker receives the money right at the end of every hour. He would not have time to spend it anyway until the
end of the day.

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 319
Next Message by Eddie is [925].
[932] Yoda: The reason why labor-power is usually paid after it is consumed by the
purchaser is to ensure that the work gets done. Recently my wifes’ parents paid a contractor
to build them a new home. An agreement was reached that my wifes’ parents would pay
for the home in advance. The contractor didn’t complete his part of the agreement because
he said that he ran out of money. Had my wifes parents paid him upon completion, this
would have never happened. This is the reason why labor is paid after it is consumed. Marx
argues that workers should get paid by the hour for the same reason why one should get paid
after a job is done. “The consumption of the commodity by the capitalist is the worker’s
effort, therefore the form in which it is sold contains some coercive elements to esure that
the labor-power is indeed delivered”. To many this becomes a catch 22 in that no money
will be distributed til the job is done but at the same time you want more hours so that you
will receive more money.
Hans: Good example. Yes, this makes it easier to account for overtime (and for lost work days), doesn’t it?
Next Message by Yoda is [934].
[943] Cmanson: Labor power is performed prior to being paid. Therefore, it has been
“consumed” by the capitalist prior to the capitalist paying for the services rendered. the
payment by the hour would allow the capitalist to breakdown his costs and surplus value
much easier.
Hans: That is not the reason. Look in the archive, there are some excellent answers to this question.
(datestring)Fri, 3 Mar 1995 10:32:47 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) I believe from doing more
reading in chapter 25 and in the archive the answer you are looking for is that the laborer is
paid after the work is done and by the hour in order for the capitalist to get the work done
before he has to pay for it. It is a type of incentive for the laborer to complete his tasks and
to continue to work for the amount of hours the capitalist wants him to work by only getting
paid for each hour of labor completed.
Hans: Yes.
Next Message by Cmanson is [967].
[951] Pegasus: The reasons that labor power is paid after it is consumed and the reasons
why workers are paid by the hour are basically the same: the capitalist wants to make sure
that the work is being done. He wants to stay in control so that he can make sure that he will
get his profits. Being paid after work is done and by the hour gives the worker the incentive
to do what he is asked. It also increases his dependency on the capitalist.
Hans: Ok, except for the dependence. I think it decreases the worker’s dependence on the capitalist, because if he
quits or gets fired he still has one paycheck coming.
Next Message by Pegasus is [964].
[953] Nena: The reason why the labor-power usually paid after it is consumed by the
purchaser is because the capitalist is usually concerned of his profit first, and he wants to
limit his cost as much as possible, by paying the labor-power he/she employes after the
product is sold to the purchaser he can obtain the weekly sales information first and decide
later that whether he is profitable or not, so he can make decision of whether or not he is
goint to expand the production (employing more labor-power) or cut back on the production.
Hans: He must make the hiring decision prior to production, the deferred payment is therefore not a help in this
respect.
320 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
Another reason is that producer/capitalist gets more liquidable fund after their products
is sold to the purchaser so he/she can pay the workers and invest more on other things.
The reason why is the labor-power paid by the hour is because capitalist wants to utilize
his employees and squeeze as much profit from his/her worker as possible, natually, the
capitalist has to employ labor-power in order to go on with their production, but by paying
labor-power hourly wages he can set different standards for their workers, and make workers
work even harder and to get to the higher paying standard (higher hourly wages). It sort of
promotes worker’s productivity .
Hans: Ok.
First Message by Nena is [54].
[979] Makarios: As Marx states, money, as a means of payment, realizes the value or
price of the article supplied. Or, so to speak, money is only paid after the article has been
supplied. Since the article in question, i.e. labor-power, isn’t fully supplied until the work
has been done, the purchaser won’t pay for it until after it has been supplied. Labor-power
is usually paid for by the hour because it represents a simple, convenient quantity of laborpower
so the employer can keep track of the amount of money he needs to pay the worker.
Hans: Good.
First Message by Makarios is [60].
[990] Ghant: Labor is paid for after it has been consumed because it comes into existence
and is consumed simultaneously, and capitalist are unwilling to pay for something they do
not yet possess. This relationship also gives the capitalist a certain amount of control over
labor. If you do this for me, then next week I’ll do something for you. The capitalist can
ensure that the worker is performing satisfactorily prior to payment for the labor-hours.
Labor is paid by the hour because the capitalist only pays for a portion of the labor-hours
actually worked. For instance, paying $5 an hour, rather than the $15 the labor is actually
producing. For the worker to improve his position, he must give more of his time to the
capitalist at the cut-rate, which improves the lot of the capitalist that much more. When the
worker increases his work load to 10 hours a day, to increase his wages $10 a day to $50 a
day, he improves the capitalists position from $80 (8 hrs x ($15 - $5)) to $100 (10 hrs x ($15
- $5)).
Hans: Good.
First Message by Ghant is [33].
[1011] Slrrjk: Labor power is paid for after it is consumed by the purchaser for a couple
of reasons. For one I think that it is to make sure that the obligation for the work is actually
carried out. In some instances if a person is paid in advane they may default on their obligations
so paying them after the job is completed is kind of an insurance policy for the capitalist
to make sure that the work is done. Secondly, I think payment after the fact is also a source
of motivation that is used for the workers. A worker is likely to be much more motivated to
finish a job if he/she knows they will not get paid until it is finished. An employee may take
an unnecessarily long amount of time if they are paid previous to completing the job. An
complaint that I have heard from several people who have had paid contractors before they
have completed work on their houses is that the contractor takes on other jobs and takes and
extremely long time to finish the job that they have been paid for. The reasoning behind the
hourly wage is probably just an extension of motivating the worker. A worker is likely to be
more motivated and to spend more time on the job on a given project if they know they are

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 321
being paid by the hour versul salary. It is also probably a way for the employer to measure
productivity.
Hans: Good reasoning: you recognized that the insurance for the capitalist and the motivation for the worker are
two different mechanisms.
Next Message by Slrrjk is [1034].
[1017] Sms: Question 224 If the labor power was piad before the work is accomplished,
then there is no way to assure that the work will be completed. The hourly wage is along
those same lines: it ties the worker to his job so he/she performs for a specific time prior to
getting paid.
Hans: yes.
First Message by Sms is [105].
[1025] Renegade: The labor power is paid after it is consumed since this commodity is
not tangible and cannot be held as collateral. After all the laborer is “free,” not an slave and
he/she can sell his/her labor power a little bit at a time. If he/she sell it all together he/she
will be an slave which is meaningless under capitalism. The labor power is only a potential
that is not acualized yet. When the labor is actually performed, then potential becomes
actualized. The price of labor power is paid by the hour rather than piecemeal. This is the
essence of mystic character of capitalist mode of production. The laborer used to be paid
daily and the old saying goes something like this “A fair day’s work for a fair day’s pay”.
This saying sums up the illusive character of payment for the labor power.
Hans: Good.
Next Message by Renegade is [1026].
Question 225 is 264 in 1996sp, 316 in 1997WI, 389 in 1998WI, 393 in 1999SP, 514 in
2001fa, 554 in 2002fa, 577 in 2003fa, 633 in 2004fa, 585 in 2005fa, 666 in 2007SP, 656
in 2008fa, and 773 in 2011fa:
Question 225 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?
[956] Eagle: I believe it takes place in the minds of those who buy and sell labor-power.
Employers have to see materials put together and made into one object, such as 20 yards of
linen make one coat.
Hans: You still have the old misunderstanding about the linen and the coat.
By using labor-power, they can figure out how much labor-power they have and compare
it to how much labor is getting done. The only thing that can actually be measured is labor,
labor-power is a theoretical number the employer has to figure out.
Hans: I don’t want to know what your definition of labor power is.
(datestring)Wed, 15 Mar 1995 07:14:28 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) I think I will change
my answer. I think the transformation of labor-power into labor is real because the laborpower
exists in the worker but it isn’t seen until he transforms it into actual labor. The
labor-power that exists in the worker can be seen when it comes out in the form of his labor.
Hans: Yes. I like that answer.
Next Message by Eagle is [1016].
[959] Marlin: This question is very interesting. Is it real or just in the minds of those who
trade it. Well, Marx makes some interesting comments. He says “the use-value supplied by
322 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
the worker to the capitalist is not in fact its labor power but its function”. Labor itself is a
function of labor-power. Written in a mathematical equation :L=L(LP);labor power affects
the value of labor. This still doesn’t explain it. It seems that Marx doesn’t give a definite,
clear-cut explanation. Not one that I can extrapolate anyway. But I am very curious. What
does he mean when he says, “Classical political economy stumbles approximately onto the
true state of affairs, but without conciously formulating it. It is unable to do this as long as it
stays within its bourgeois skin.” I think he is saying that the answer lays on two planes. One
being that of the laborer and the other that of the capitalist. It is real to the latter but only
occurs in the minds of the laborer. After three or for cups of coffee my own mind started
running. I am not sure if I even got the jist of the question but I will wait to hear from you
on that. Meanwhile I’ll keep searching for more info on the question. Good day.
Hans: This is a very difficult question. I think I have a satisfactory answer, but instead of telling you my answer
I’d like to try if I can just give you some hints and see if you can figure it out based on these hints. First hint: This
transformation is not a transformation in the sense that what used to be value of labor-power is suddenly turned into
value of labor. In which sense can one speak of a “trans-formation” here?
(datestring)Sun, 5 Mar 1995 14:09:02 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) Let me start with a simple
definition. Transformation: the act of changing from one form to another. What you said
definitely makes sense. He is not referring to a tangible, immediate change from one form
to the other. I believe that this takes place in the minds, if I am taking your hint correctly,
of those involved. It changes from one form, how the sellers view it, to the other, how the
buyers view it, all cerebrally.
Hans: Your argument is: since it is not a tangible change from one form to another, this change must take place
in the minds. But before looking at how things represent themselves in the minds, let’s look at what it is in
reality which gives rise to certain mental images. Not being a transformation in the sense that what used to be
value of labor-power is suddenly turned into value of labor, what is then this transformation? I would say: it is a
“transformation” in the very literal sense of being a form which is transposed, a form which is one step removed
from that of which it is the form.
Are you with me, and if so, can you pick up the argument from there?
(datestring)Wed, 8 Mar 1995 12:55:02 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) I have not given up!
However I am stiil lost. I will get back to you tomorrow.
Hans: If the form is removed from the content, it may invite false conclusions about what it is. This is where the
“mental” thing comes in. Look at the distinction I made in the Annotations between the fetish-like character of the
commodity, and commodity fetishism.
Next Message by Marlin is [974].
Question 226 is 457 in 1997sp, 453 in 1997ut, and 656 in 2002fa:
Question 226 Define productive forces and relations of production.
[384] Translat: Productive forces would appear to be a combination of the means of
production and the labor power used for production. I tend to believe that the productive
forces tend to move in concert, almost as one element.
Hans: Ok.
Relations of production is the forced relationship with needs and necessity. A person
might work at a factory for $5.00 per hour for the necessities of life, when they would rather
be a doctor or painter.
Hans: Relations of production are the social relations which have to do with production.
Next Message by Translat is [385].

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 323
[433] Deadhead: Productive forces are a combination of means of production and labor
power. The means of production are physical resources, such as tools, machinery, natural
resources, and raw materials, while labor power refers to the physical strength and capabilities,
physical skills, and technical knowledge of the worker whose labor is combined with
the means of production in order to produce the chosen commodity. Relations of production
deal with the relationship between the owner of the means of production and those who possess
the needed labor power and skills to use those means to produce commodities. I feel
this should also involve things such as the quantity and quality of labor,and the technology
and equipment to be used inrelation to the amount and quality of products to be produced.
Hans: Your phrase “relationship between the owner of the means of production and those who possess the needed
labor power to use those means to produce commodities” already takes it as given that
(a) the workers are not the owners of the means of production necessary to produce at modern technology,
and
(b) that the products take the social form of commodities.
Both points, (a) and (b), are very important aspects of the capitalist relations of production.
Next Message by Deadhead is [436].
[462] Chance: Productive forces would seem to me to refer to the forces of production.
Such would include human labor, raw materials, etc. I do believe there is a difference between
forces of production and productive forces. Forces of production are like those above
named. Productive forces would seem to be when labor/labor relations/ and output work
together to achieve high productivity = Productive forces.
Hans: Good try, but this is not the convention. Productive forces is exactly synonymous to “forces of production.”
It is shorter, and closer to the German “Produktivkraefte.” And you did not read the Annotations closely enough: it
says there specifically that not labor, but lebor power is a productive force (i.e., a force of production).
The relations of production are those social relations that go into the process of production.
For example, that would include boss/subordinate and peer/peer relationships. These
relationships must exist to have forces of production. If they exist and work relatively well
together, I would consider that Productive forces.
Hans: This is a too narrow definition, and it is a definition on the social {2} level, while relations of production are
commonly thought of as social {1} relations.
Next Message by Chance is [594].
[464] Zaskar: Productive forces seem to be any resource that is utilized to produce output.
Raw materials, labor, tools, experience and knowledge are all productive forces when it
comes to producing anything. Relations of production, it seems to me, are the social frameworks
or relations we use to accomplish work. These frameworks and relations we make do
not always represent our own will, yet we enter them because we know they are fruitful to
the production of goods or services.
Hans: We really have no choice. Whether they are fruitful or not (and it can be debated whether modern capitalism
is more “fruitful” or more “destructive”), we find ourselves in an intricate web of relations of production.
But I like your formulations. Your are using your own words and are not just paraphrasing what the Annotations
say.
Next Message by Zaskar is [534].
[476] Marlin: Productive forces - a combination of production capital and labor. Relations
of production - social relations of production.
Hans: Capital is not a productive force. We have not yet defined capital in this class, but the term “capital”, like
the term “commodity”, denotes not just things but things in a very specific social context.
324 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
(datestring)Mon, 6 Feb 1995 13:50:35 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) By capital I mean production
machines or manufacturing tools. Since we have not defined capital in this class I
would change this to maybe human and machine labor.
Hans: And about your definition of relations of production: well, what are social relations of production?
(datestring)Mon, 6 Feb 1995 13:50:35 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) I meant to say social
relations pertaining to production. The social relations affecting everyday production.
Next Message by Marlin is [479].
[483] Stalin: Productive forces are the labor power and means of production. Relations
of production are the social relations which have to do with production.
Hans: Don’t forget to mention “technology” as part of the productive forces.
Next Message by Stalin is [484].
[891] Sms: The productive forces are the combination of the means of production, the
labor power, and the technology associated with the production. Relations of production are
the social relations which pertain to production.
Hans: Ok.
Next Message by Sms is [970].
Question 227 is 268 in 1996ut, 391 in 1997WI, 455 in 1997ut, 485 in 1999SP, and 682 in
2003fa:
Question 227 Why are the relations of production necessary and independent of people’s
wills?
[385] Translat: There are necessities of life such as food, clothing, housing, medicine,
etc. These things “need” to be produced.
Hans: Yes, production is necessary, but are relations of production necessary? Relations of production are, roughly,
social relations regulating who produces what and who gets what.
There are those who will work at a job that is convenient or available, but may not be
what they really want to be doing.
Hans: Our lack of choice starts even earlier: that we have to take a job instead of working in a cooperative setting,
etc.
(datestring)Wed, 8 Feb 1995 08:18:54 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) I am now a bit confused.
Perhaps I am still thinking in economic terms. Economically, with regulating who produces
what and who gets what, there would result hugh monopolies. However, in a socialist society
with all things and labor being equal, I am not sure that social relations would be necessary.
They could prove to be a means of oligarchy.
Hans: For you, the word “relations of production” seems to denote some small clique regulating everything else.
Marx uses this concept in a much broader sense: any social relations, whether centralized or not, which have to do
with production are relations of production.
(datestring)Wed, 15 Feb 1995 15:38:45 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) Yes, but not everyone
will be happy no matter what they are doing; yet we must all contribute something or be a
burden on society.
Hans: I did not mean to complain with the words “our lack of choice”, I just wanted to point out that there are very
specific social relations.
Next Message by Translat is [386].

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 325
[407] Braydon: In an economic society people have to work. Production of commodities
must happen and people need to put time and energy into this process. If we relied on
people coming together of their own free will and getting together with people they knew
and liked it would probably rarely happen. We often hear the phrase “never do business
with friends”, it can ruin relationships. Professional relationships and “social” relationships
need to be kept separate, so, we can distinguish between work and socializing. Corporations
have to pick individuals with the same type of skills in order to get the production they need.
Those individuals have to work to live and they probably aren’t friends to begin with, but
companies cannot decipher who likes who at their point of hiring. Relations of production
is necessary in a society where we need to produce.
Hans: This is an interesting and insightful answer, but you are reading the question in much more concrete terms
than it was intended. It is only a matter of vocabulary. Let me try to translate.
For you, social relations are relations of friendship, of liking each other, of socializing. For Marx, social
relations are all kinds of relations; family relations, friendship and marriage, relations between teacher and student,
relations between employer and employee, everything.
For you, relations of production are the relations which people have with their colleagues on the job. For Marx,
relations of production are a subset of all social relations, namely, those which have to do with the social production
process. Your use of the term “relations of production” differs from the general usage in two ways.
(a) First of all, you use it in a narrower sense. You are closer to what some Marxists call “relations in production”,
i.e., the relations in the production process itself, rather than “relations of production”, which are society-wide
relations determining who produces what and who gets what.
(b) You are using it for social {2} relations, i.e., interpersonal relations, while usually “relations of production”
denote social {1} relations, the anonymous social structure which we all have to fit in. Look for instance at Cohen’s
definition of relations of production which I reproduce on the first page of Appendix (A) in the Annotations (the
text which this Question refers to): he says relations of production are the social laws which determine who owns
whom or what. The “who owns what” is very clearly a social {1} relation and not a social {2} relation. At first sight it
does not even seem to be a social relation at all: people might think that it is a property of the thing to be owned by
a person. But of course it is a social relation: it is the obligation for everyone else in society to respect this private
property. But this is not a social {2} relation, not an interpersonal interaction (although it may give rise to such if
you say to someone: “hey this belongs to me”, thus enforcing your property rights). Table A.1 in the Annotations
shows how well a society can be described by such property rights. I still think relations of production cannot be
completely boiled down to property rights, but as a first approximation this is not bad.
So much about the definition of “relations of production.” This special terminology is an important barrier
which makes such philosophical texts look more difficult than they are. I think alsmost everyone who reads such
texts has a little correspondence table in his or her brain, by which he or she translates all those high-brow terms
into something more concrete and tangible, in order to understand what is being said.
To go back to Question 227, here is what I meant to ask: I wanted to know how it can be justified that Marx
calls the relations of production “necessary” and “independent of people’s wills.”
(datestring)Tue, 14 Feb 1995 17:54:04 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) Thankyou for clarifying
this for me. I will now try to answer your intended question based on what I understood from
what you told me. Relations of producion are necessary in this society becuase we have to
have private ownership or employers to be able to produce or get anyting done. There has to
be some control in order to acheive. Now, this is independent of people’s wills because it is
the way the cookie crumbles. Some are born into wealty families and have mor opportunity
to acheive. Some take over daddy’s business and are automatically in control. Some are
natural born leaders. Some are great mechanics and are happy to live as such. This person
is looking for another a person who “owns” a garage where he can work. Not everyone can
own because we need the others to work.
326 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
Hans: yes, basically this is it. people have to consume, therefore to produce, and they cannot do it alone, they must
do it in some social relations. And at this point in history, the social relations which grew up around production
were not consciously or deliberately set up.
Message [407] referenced by [406]. Next Message by Braydon is [497].
[408] Marinda: People must enter the existing relations of production because there is no
other option available in order to live. These relations are independent of “will” in the sense
that one has no choice, but also because one’s will itself is shaped by the circumstances
one is born into. For instance, the only thing I was ever taught about Marxism while I
was growing up in Utah was that it is evil and it is inseparable from totalitarianism because
nobody would ever be communist voluntarily. Actually, that last bit was more my own
interpretation, because the “education” I received on the subject really stayed at the level of
“capitalism good; communism bad”. But I was a weird kid. My two friends and I decided
that weirdness was a virtue, because we did not want to be brainless sheep in order to fit
in, even if it were possible. I just thought that any idiot who cared enough to think about
it should be able to see the distinction between an economic concept or system (such as
socialism) and a repressive regime which respected no individual human rights (such as
Stalinism). I also felt it was my patriotic duty to myself to refuse to make the public oath of
loyalty to a piece of cloth. I still believe that real freedom is more important than (and is in
fact contradicted by) mandatory bowing down and praying to an alleged symbol of freedom.
The fact that other students called us “communist” as a result was only evidence that they
didn’t know what they were talking about. It had nothing to do with economics, in my mind.
(enough rambling...)
Hans: Your contribution exemplifies that relations may be necessary and independent of people’s wills, but people
also have the capacity to think and will not necessarily agree with the relations they find themselves in. Right on, I
enjoyed your “rambling” very much.
Next Message by Marinda is [543].
[456] Chance: After reading other responses to this question, I thought I might add my
own view point to those of Braydon/Miranda and Translat.
My understanding of the question comes from my experience in the workplace. It seems
as though we have already established that production is necessary. We all have to eat, etc
to survive. In the business world, in order to “survive,” you must be willing to deal with
all types of people and situations. I have had to deal with contractors to make a sale (to
“survive”), but it is in no way shape or form my will to deal with them. If I could, I would
tell most to hang it in their ear. Therefore, it is clear to me that my personal will is very
independent of the necessity of relations for production.
Furthermore, in this day and age, if you try to “survive” on your own, you won’t make it.
It takes relations to be competitive and productive. However, these relations are sometimes
ones that we would rather give up. But, because of the necessity of relations for production,
we cannot. However, this doesn’t mean that it is in line with people’s own will and desire to
have such relations.
Hans: Hearing you people I realize how privileged I am to have a halfways unalienated job. I am very interested
in what you have to say. But don’t explain capitalism by the necessity to eat. See the spell over the worker in [446].
Next Message by Chance is [459].

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 327
[479] Marlin: Relations of production are necessary in order to assure proper distribution
of produced commodities. They also allocate laborers to their best suited trades and
positions. In other words, they assure the most efficient means of production.
Hans: Relations of production are not by definition efficient or guarantee a desirable distribution of the products.
Next Message by Marlin is [911].
[484] Stalin: Most people are forced to work at jobs which they don’t want or enjoy; and
the only reason they work them is to survive.
Hans: In the archive there are answers to this question in which the phrase “relations of production” was understood
in a very narrow sense to mean the personal relations which people have with each other who are working as
employees on the same job. I found these detailed discussions interesting, but perhaps I did not emphasize enough
that in Marxism, the term “relations of production” is meant in a much broader sense.
Next Message by Stalin is [486].
[919] Titania: The realations of production are necessary and independent of people’s
wills because society depends on these systems to live. And, society will function more
effectively if these relations are well worked out. (ie recognized rules and patterns). If
someone in society does not like one facet of production or industry, he can choose not to
participate in that branch. For instance, a verigarian may not like to work in a butcher shop,
but some people deem meat necessary for sustaining life. The relations of production are
independent of people’s wills because they rise above human daily life. They are a constant
(granted industries will come and go, but people will always be trading with each other and
working with eachother to make things. )
Hans: Good, very concrete answer (with a little advice what to do if one does not like it).
Next Message by Titania is [964].
Question 228 is 397 in 1997WI and 462 in 1997ut:
Question 228 Are there signs nowadays that the capitalist social relations may be fetters
for the development of productivity?
[386] Translat: Absolutely. If we take the example of the Ford production line, we see
that when man is forced to labor at a monotonous job that he has no pride in or affinity for,
the time he expends lessens, the quality lessens and eventually, his need to escape from the
monotony dies. He is working for one reason and one reason only, the paycheck and the
retirement. His creativity is channeled in other directions or completely stifled.
Hans: You are mixing up two issues here: the well-being of the worker and his or her productivity.
I don’t agree. It is hard to be productive when a worker is not happy where he/she is
working. People who enjoy what they do are more productive, less ill, and work harder than
those who don’t. Thus productin decreases or increases with a worker’s satifaction with their
job. Therefore, productivity is linked to satisfaction of the worker or other goals.
Hans: Many modern workplaces are such that people would not work there were it not for the fear of unemployment
or homelessness. What you are saying is one additional perk, but it is not the main mechanism on which our
capitalist system relies to make people productive.
(datestring)Wed, 15 Feb 1995 15:35:40 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) But isn’t the satisfaction
of a worker connected to the productivity? Or, is productivity linked to just society?
Hans: Perhaps you did not get my earlier mailing. Here it is again.
Next Message by Translat is [590].
328 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
[406] Braydon: I am assuming that capitalist social relations means relations of production.
The relations the individual is forced into when taking a job in a capitalist society. Yes,
I feel this can hinder production and productivity. For example, I worked in retail for about
5 years and worked with a number of individuals at one counter in a department store. Of
course, we had no say in who was going to be hired and, thus, no say in who we were working
with. I can recall the countless hours we spent resolving conflicts between personalities.
Many problems that were due to the fact that we oft times did not like one another. Those
hours could have been spent producing or in our case selling, which we were paid to do.
Large companies spend probably thousands of dollars on seminars on helping employees
get along and work together, time and money that could be used in production.
Hans: Again, you are taking the term “capitalist relations of production” in a more narrow sense than it was meant,
[407]. Nevertheless your contribution is very much to the point and I am very interested in what you are saying. I
have always been wondering why there are so strong emotions on the workplace. I guess we simply cannot deny
that we are social animals, but here is a situation in which meaningful interactions, namely decisions about the
production process of which we are a part, are taken away from us and thus we are all revving in neutral. If I
recall right Marx somewhere comments on it that there is an emancipatory element in having to work together with
strangers, with people with whom we would otherwise not associate. By “emancipatory” I mean: that this somehow
would make us better and freer and more powerful, that it would help us shed some of our (invisible) fetters. Any
ideas about that?
(datestring)Wed, 1 Feb 1995 20:26:48 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) I can see marx’s views
on this. I had to think about it for a while, but I understand where he is coming from. If
you do business with friends you have to give better service. They have higher expectations.
They expect you to have the same ideals and morals they do when doing business. You can
be free to deal with strangers in any way that is suitable to the situation. Acting as a manger
of the people at that particular counter I dealt with each person differently, according to their
personality. It gave me more power as a manager. If they were dear friends of mine they
would have seen right through me. You can shed the “fetters” when dealing with strangers
in the process of production.
Hans: You are saying: it makes good business sense to keep workplace relations and personal relations separate,
because then it is easier to manipulate the people that work for you. The concepts of “emancipation” and “power”
(in the sense of “empowerment”) I used above mean something different, indeed they mean almost the opposite.
You have been arguing on a very down-to-earth and practical level. Let your imagination fly!
Next Message by Braydon is [407].
[511] Darci: Technological advances are fettered by capitalism. In the engineering field,
engineers do not share their technology with other because of the way capitalism works in
the work force in the U.S. By limiting the knowledge to specific individuals they protect
their jobs and can command a high wage. Companies that employee engineers usually do so
on a contract basis, so that when the contract runs out, the engineer either has made himself
so valuable because of his specialty or he has to find another job. These conditions sound
familiar in other industries as well. They are the very ones which keep the boundaries set
and hinder technology from being freely available to all of society and from escaping the
boundaries that greed and fear(loss of income) place on it. Therefore, “the mind cannot
achieve whatever it can conceive.”
Hans: In other words the engineers have to hoard their knowledge and try to be the only ones who have this
knowledge because otherwise they will lose their job.
Next Message by Darci is [512].

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 329
[679] Sinikka: Such signs could be that, as employees become unhappy enough, they
sabotage the products they are producing, as well as their own work environment. There is
distrust at work places; cameras and monitors are placed all over, even in rest rooms. Disgruntled
employees, who want to quit or who are fired, and who have had a computer job,
are denied access to computers as soon as it becomes evident that they will leave the company.
This happens as there is a possibility that they might sabotage computer systems or
company records. Some companies, in order to soothe tense social relations, allow employees
throw cream pies in managers’ face once a year at a special festive occasion. Developed
from a Japanese idea, many companies have adopted the “TQM” (Total Quality Management)
program, which, among other things, allows employees “empower themselves” and
urges employees to give Thank You cards to each others and to the managers.
Hans: Excellent examples. You are saying that the contradictions of capitalism start to break out openly even in
the production process itself, in the very domain where capitalism is reputedly functioning best.
Next Message by Sinikka is [680].
Question 333 Introduction
[71] Translat: I am a junior at the U and have just changed my major from engineering
to sociology. I am struggling to understand all the concepts of this vein of study as well as
a new way of writing reports. So much of this science seems to be common sense and yet
the underlying meanings can be confusing. I hope in this quarter to gain a comprehensible
understanding Marx and his need to capsulate societies. Although his view of the “perfect”
world sounds inviting, the underlying problems and the obvious neglect of the human factor
in his writings fascinates me. I am a full-time student and expect, with great effort and lots
of luck, to graduate in the spring with a BS in Sociology.
Next Message by Translat is [212].
[73] Golfer: Hi, my name is golfer, I enjoy my studies, family, work, and golf. I continue
to improve in all my hobbies. I look forward to the completion of my education. I have 2
childern that I enjoy spending time with. I hate my job. I love my golf. This is a student
in the class and I am sitting here at this computer and some student named Golfer forgot to
quit out of e-mail. . . Why do you hate your job? Why do you love your golf? Why am I
logging out of your account?
Next Message by Golfer is [103].
[79] Despain: Hello 508, My name is Hans Despain, I am the TA of this class. More
than being the TA, I wish to participate in reading the Text and in the discussions on line. I
am a graduate student focusing my studies in Political Economy and History of Economic
Thought. I am most interested in the dynamic structuring of our social formations and
how we are able to understand these structures. Moreover, it seems to me that Marx as
an economist has been quite successful in capturing the dynamics of the capitalist societies
of his and our eras. Hence, reading and re-reading Marx always proves very enlightening
to me. For me it is not only his theory but the structure of his theory that is un-orthodox
and progressive, and I hope to obtain a better grasp of his method of understanding social
dynamics. I will also be available to help with students’ questions and your answers to
Professor Ehrbar. Anyone that has any questions which they would like specifically directed
to me (not to the class as a whole), can send me an email at despain@econ.sbs.utah.edu
330 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
or despain@econ.utah.edu. Capital is a very difficult text that requires help from others to
begin to understand what exactly Marx was up to, so please feel free to ask any questions
that may arise; I check my email every day, so any questions directed toward me should
usually be answered rather quickly. I look forward to our reading and discussions, Thanks
Hans Despain. despain@econ.sbs.utah.edu
Next Message by Despain is [201].
[85] Yoda: My code name is Yoda. I am a fifty year senior here at the University of Utah
because I screwed around too much my first two years. I am taking this class because it
fills a requirement for my economic degree. I have a job down in Costa Rica with Chiquita
International pending my graduation. My wife is expecting a baby any day now and I am a
complete nervous wreck. I know very little about Marx or about any of his crazy ideas. This
guy seems like a fruitcake.
Next Message by Yoda is [128].
[102] Tsunami: I am deeply interested in latin american politics and culture as I am
what they call on the island dominicana ausente (absentee dominican). If you come across
anything that would be of interest, ie. Marxist Latin Americans other than Castro and Che
Guevara, I would very much appreciate it if you would let me know. I know that Juan
Bosch, also dominican, wrote a book called The Dominican Experiment concerning the
Cuban revolution and its implications on its neighboring latin american countries. I have
never read Marx before (and then it was only in a feminist synopsis of “this is what Marx
said” but I did find them very enlightening on the commoditization of female bodies, and
especially minority female’s bodies, ie. Heidi Hartmann.
Next Message by Tsunami is [104].
[193] Sammy: my code name is sammy. I am a senior majoring in economics, and don’t
know as much about Marx as I feel I should. (I know hardly anything.) It has taken me
forever to get my account working, and using it has been harder. I am curious why everyone
seems to make such a big deal about Marx’s ideas, I guess I’ll find out. ps. to Yoda, I know
how you feel. I am also in my fifth year, and my wife had a baby a few weeks ago. It’s not
that bad, it’s really fun as long as you don’t like sleep too much.
Next Message by Sammy is [195].
[194] Chris: I liked “Yoda’s” Introduction of Himself, cheerful and nervous about the
new baby. But if Marx is a bit of a fruitcake I suddenly felt I might have a special role as an
observer from London, because I am a psychiatrist! I spend much of my time helping people
with schizophrenia deal with stress in a more practical way in the community so that they
do not need to come into hospital and can gradually get more in touch with reality. I read
volume I of Capital a long time ago, and other shorter works like “Wages Price and Profit”
as well as commentaries. For Jon’s reference I did read William’s Culture and Society many
years ago and have fond memories of it. Hearing new minds think about Marx, even if
bringing assumptions from prevailing western ideas, will be refreshing. What I find difficult
about Marx is that he was proud of being very well read in many languages and determined
to keep his end up. More particularly I find his use of Hegel’s dialectical method hard to
understand: I am not sure how much he wrote the way he did under the influence of Hegel
and how much he made the approach his own. Then I am not sure how much sense to
make of it in modern terms, whether as I suspect it has been misinterpreted by looking at it
from a mechanistic model of science, and whether if we take on board more fluid scientific

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 331
ideas about relativity, uncertainty, fuzziness, chaos and complexity, it might suddenly seem
like what we have been talking about all the time. It will be interesting that Hans can give
clues as to the background through the original German. Perhaps “Yoda’s” doubt could be a
growth point if he has time in those long sleepless nights to say what is the strangest thing
he finds about Marx. Could other people say this?
[199] Koala: (datestring)Fri, 20 Jan 1995 06:54:03 +1000(/datestring) Introduction and
Reply to 40 chance I am one of several academics who have taken up Hans’ invitation to
“sit in” on this class, offering observations from time to time. I’m an Australian, living in
Sydney, and for 5 years taught at the University of New South Wales. I resigned last year to
complete my PhD full-time. My PhD is on economics and chaos theory; my Masters was on
a critique of Marx. My views on Marx are not shared by the vast majority of Marxists.
First Message by Koala is [198].
[211] Ghant: Hi, just a quick note to say I finally got onto the e-mail system. I am working
at a networking consulting firm so the reason I find this class interesting is the method of
interaction. I seem to be having a bit of a problem understanding just what Marx meant,
perhaps it’s just vocabulary, perhaps I’m just not in the right frame of mind. Any insights?
Next Message by Ghant is [220].
[254] Marlin: I am a junior in economics and have been quite confused the first couple
of weeks with this e-mail. Anyway, I have plans to study abroad in Spain this summer and
upon my return finish my degree with a minor in spanish. I would like to go into international
business in Mexico or S. America, but I may go to graduate school before entering a career.
Good luck to all of you who started out as confused as I.
Next Message by Marlin is [282].
[276] Ledzep: Whew!!! I finally figured this thing out! I feel like I’m using the automated
system for my financial accounts and have come to a point where I want to speak to a
customer service representative. I am very new at this e mail system, in fact I have never
used it. I feel as though I am out of touch with everyone in the class but I think I’ll start to
manage. I have been trying to get caught up after missing class last Wednesday for a funeral
in Kansas City and I’m having a hell of time trying to figure out this computer system... not
to mention the meat and potatoes of this class, Marx’s Capital. My code name is ledzep
because I believe Led Zeppelin to be the greatest band in history and feel some sort of
satisfaction to be associated with them. I work for a financial institution on average sixtyfive
hours a week, ski in the winter and play golf in the summer. I love music and I enjoy
going to concerts, especially outdoor stadium rock concerts where I can get lost in rythem
and maniacal crowds. The most significant aspect of my life and loves is God and religion.
Anyway, I guess I should answer a few of these questions. As I have already implied, I
have been out of town for reasons beyond my control and have subsequently fallen behind.
I hope you will accept my homework with minimal penalty for being late. Before I answer
the questions you pose, I have a few questions about some beginning principles, concepts
and terms. Why does Marx believe that the wealth of a capitalist society is a collection of
commodities, external objects that satisfy needs? I would think that commodities would
be the wealth of the land. A wealth of any society is its culture (ie. its language, ideas,
superstitions, national dances, abstractions from its individual people, just about anything
that isn’t conrete). Societies can’t produce anything but abstractions and children. The word
which is the cause of my confusion is “society”. Maybe this is a question of semantics,
332 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
but I see the composition of a society to be the individuals and the things that they produce
from themselves. As soon as a society starts to manipulate the land on which they live, then
wealth becomes a combination of the nation’s and society’s wealth. Both have use-value but
neither has exchange value. One can’t exchange a nation in its purest form because it has no
boundries, no shape. The same is true of a society.
Hans: Yes, many products of society live in the minds of the individuals. Yet they are not individual property.
language is a good example. Apparently this is why you call them abstractions. But any material production
process is also necessarily social.
Next Message by Ledzep is [283].
[396] Darci: My code name is darci. This is my fifth quarter after returning to college
from a twenty year “sabbatical.” This is my “hump” quarter. I’m five quarters away from
a bachelors in economics. I’m working full time and raising three teenagers. I’m finding
it challenging to juggle my time among work, home, and school. I have tried to combine
activities but it is difficult to study and cheer for my sons and daughter at their ball games. I
also find it a challenge to study neoclassical economics and Marxian economics in the same
quarter. If anyone knows how I might work smarter not harder, I’m open to suggestions.
Also, civic and renegade, thanks–your answers to some of the questions are helping me to
understand some of the concepts I’ve struggled with.
Next Message by Darci is [511].
[501] Titania: Hola to my fellow students. I was at a different location for the first class
and didn’t know we were supposed to send in a description of ourselves. No more excuses.
I am a senior in the econ program. This class is interesting to me because I am taking a
class on Keynes simultaneously. With apologies to Prof. Ehrbar and other Marxians, I am a
confirmed capitalist. None-the-less, I am alway more than happy to try something new. If
nothing else, this class has given me a larger perspective on true socialism.....and how the
former Soviet Union has given Marx a bad name when it really wasn’t warrented. laters,
titania.
Next Message by Titania is [515].
[541] Civic: Hi, since I haven’t formally introduced myself I felt this would be a good
opportunity. I am taking this class for an elective in the business program. I like diversity
and the format of this class attracted me. For one, I have really been able to learn some
valuable internet skills, something that has eluded me so far. I am very interested by the
class discussion and sometimes I am not sure how I feel about certain issues. I like learning
however and try to be open to other viewpoints. By the way my codename Civic stands for
my Honda Civic I drive, I don’t know exactly what that implies, but your free to speculate.
(I don’t think it means anything so don’t spend too much time on it). I have had some
difficultly understanding the text, so I hope I can figure it out with your help.
Next Message by Civic is [598].
[548] Marinda: I’m still a bit confused about my various accounts and the connections
between them, but here I’ll at least put us on equal footing regarding archives and homework
- my archive codename is marinda. (If anyone was paying attention, [not that you should
have] you probably figured that out just from writing style and content.) My list name is
lisa, and there is no “d” in any of my alleged names. I am a grad student in anthropology,
with a BS in evolutionary biology and animal behavior (that’s one degree) and I’m certified
to teach science in middle school and high school (but I’ll have to be certifiably insane to

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 333
go back into that hell-hole again!) In my branch of anthropology, we are using the same
methods to study animal behavior as biologists use on other living things, but the biologists
stole the methods from economics where they were studying people to begin with, so I
guess I bring it full circle. It turns out that cost/benefit analyses and optimization is exactly
what we should expect of all lifeforms, as a result of darwinian evolution. (Opposition to
this point of view is expected, but questions about it are welcome.) I was born and reared
in Utah, a Descendant of the Utah Pioneers through every branch of the family tree, but I
left Provo, left the automatic BYU professor’s offspring discount and the “free” board and
room with Mom or Dad behind, I left “Happy Valley” for that “godless” university to the
north (UofU). I’ve often been told that I’m not “a typical Utahn,” whatever that is. So, does
oppressive conformity generate more conformity, generate hypocrisy (which is outwardonly
conformity), generate even greater opposition to conformity? or D, all of the above!
When I’m not analyzing everything to death, I construct high quality artistic clothing, walk
my yellow labrador retriever, collect early 70’s acid rock, grow a garden, make wine in my
basement, lobby the legislature, learn and perform traditional folk dances of eastern Europe
(in a group called Zivio) and reproduce folk costumes, among other things. One more thing
- I’m really shy about controversy...NOT!
Next Message by Marinda is [566].
[557] Zaskar: Hello fellow econ.508 classmates: My name is Zaskar. I am taking this
class from Professor Ehrbar in an attempt to broaden my understanding of the different
schools of thought regarding the workings of commerce. I have found the class quite interesting
to this point. The course material is stimulating but the real value to me thus far
has been the internet work. I believe that my new exposure to the internet will benefit me
greatly. I hope this new class format succeeds so that it can continue to be offered.
Next Message by Zaskar is [715].
[643] Nena: I am here to introduce myself at the first time. I am a graduate student in
econometrics, this is my first quarter. The reason why I take this class is that I am curious
to know what Marx said in his book. Because I am a foreign student, and I don’t think I
will have any chance to know and understand “the true” Marx after I go back to my country.
Before I came to America, my impression of “Marx” is so unclear and somehow “terrible”.
Although I still have some difficultity to really understand what Marx was writing in his
book because of my language problem, I am enjoy to know something new and “strange”,
and to solve the mystification and confusion about “Marx” buried in my heart for a long
time.
Next Message by Nena is [745].
[644] Leo: My code name is LEO. I am an Economics major with a Sociology minor and
am planning to graduate in the Spring. Prior to the U I went to SLCC where I received an
AS in Business Mgt. and Paralegal. I am also in the process of applying for Law School.
Currently I am working as a Corporate Environmental Paralegal for a nationwide automotive
quick lubrication company. My job involves working with environmental and administrative
law issues.
Next Message by Leo is [749].
[718] Sinbad: I guess an introduction is better late than never. I am a junior economics
major and a full-time employee at the University. I love this field of study and was very
curious about Marx’s ideas. Unfortunately, at the beginning of the quarter I felt lost and
334 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
discouraged with the class. I don’t think I understood what Marx was all about. It really
helped me to read the introduction to “Capital” to gain a little insight of Marx’s own history.
I still struggle with his text but what I do understand has helped me become more open
minded to his philosophy.
Next Message by Sinbad is [774].
Term Paper 999 is 299 in 1996sp and 999 in 1996ut:
Term Paper 999 Termpaper about chapter 25
[957] Eddie: Dear Doctor Ehrbar in our group are eddie and ida (a couple of ninjas)
Document is below Chapter 25: The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation I. A Growing
demand for labour-power accompanies accumulation if the composition of capital remains
the same. General law of capital is accumulation. Composition of capital is composed of two
parts. The growth of a variable part, labor power, and the constant part which is the means
of production. Growth of capital is a growth of its variable part, ie. the labor power. With
a surplus value every year, capitalists ave an increased demand for labor. When the number
of workers outstrips the supply, wages increase. The accumulation of capital is therefore a
multiplication of the wage laborer. Laborers get their desire to work by their own wants and
desires. The capitalist can use this to his advantage by making the laborer work long hours at
low wages. In a nation(slave less), laborers who have too much money are lazy and insolent,
too little money and they are desperate. The surest wealth will consist in a multitude of laborious
poor. This is why when we have an ever increasing amount of capital this will mean an
ever increasing amount of laborious poor. Individuals may acquire property by means other
than labor. By relying on the industry of others. It is the command of labor that places the
capitalist in control. An increase in the price of labor only means that the length and weight
of the golden chain the wage laborer wears will be loosened somewhat. An increase in the
price of labor results from accumulation of capital, implies a)either price of labor keeps
going up because it does not interfere with accumulation or b)accumulation slackens as a result
of the increased price of labor. The increase in capital made the exploitable labor power
insufficient. The rate of accumulation is independent, the rate of wages is the dependent.
When the industry cycle is in its phase of crisis, a general decrease in the price of commodities
is expressed as a increase in the relative value of money. A general increase in price of
commodities expresses a fall in the relative value of money. This says that in one case there
are too few laborers in existence, and in the other too many. The relation between capital,
accumulation and the rate of wages is only 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. The increase of wages is confined within limits that leave intact the foundations
of capitalist system and also secure its reproduction on and increased scale. 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 neither the social wealth
nor magnitude of capital that leads to a rise in wages, but only the constant growth of accumulation
and the degree of rapidity of that growth. With the increase in the productivity of
labor, a consequence is a mass accumulation of raw materials. The variable part of production,
which is labor power, will slowly diminish in percentage as capital is increased. This
will also mean a reduction in the price since the payment of labor is reflection of the value

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 335
of the commodity. In the prevailing system, the only means for an increase in production
of commodities would be only through an increase of individual capitals. The only way to
attain social productivity is through accumulation. Basically, the surplus value that could be
used for society is being used for the production of more capital, thus accumulation. Every
accumulation in capitalism will become accumulation. This increases the wealth held by
the small percent of the capitalist. This concentration of accumulation grows to a greater or
lesser extent. 1) The increase in concentration of the social means of production is limited by
the degree of social wealth. 2) The social wealth is divided among capitalists who compete
among other capitalists. Accumulation of wealth of society is scattered over competition,
increasing concentration of means of production and command over labor. Capital grows
in a huge mass to a single mouth in one place, while others feed this mouth as if at a zoo.
When capitalists compete, their competition is mainly in the cheapening of commodities, a
direct reflection of the scale of production again the capitalist beat on the small capitalists.
This will always ruin the small capitalist and keep the fat bellies of the capitalist bigger and
bigger. A new force comes into play for the small capitalist known as credit. At first it
seems this credit is an assistant to accumulation for the smaller capitalist. The competition
and credit go hand in hand. So in the end the credit is extended to the main capitalist and
kept away from the rest of us growlers. Once again, capitalism grows into powerful masses
at a single hand in one place. It has been dangled in front of the smaller masses like a
piece of candy, but swiped away at the last feasible moment. The intention for capitalists
is concentration, in an attempt to concentrate by all capitalists sets in fierce competition for
centralization for the means of production. Centralization can be a good thing if it were in
the hands of all society as the example of railroads across the country became accumulated.
Centralization can be seen as a tool for social accumulation. But, since centralization is
so competitive, social accumulation cannot take place. III. The progressive production of
a relative surplus population or industrial Reserve army. Capitalists mode of production,
development of the productivity of labor, and organic composition of capital develop at a
very quick rate. Since the demand for labor is determined by the variable constituent of capital
demand for labor power progressively decreases. To keep people employed at a constant
rate, accumulation and centralization increase at an exponential rate, thus maintaining a population
surplus since the population is growing at a mathematic rate. This surplus population
becomes the lever of capitalist accumulation as an industrial reserve army will be formed.
Since the constant capital is ever increasing and the variable constituent becomes a smaller
percentage over time, this can also lead to a population surplus. The capitalist can replace
skilled labor by less skilled mature by immature, adults by children. This exploitation keeps
the structure of fed and feeder ever growing apart. IV. Different forms of existence of the
relative surplus population. The General law of capitalist accumulation. The relative surplus
population exists in several forms. During times of business slack, there are three such
forms. The floating, the latent, and the stagnant. The floating form, workers are repelled
sometimes attracted so that the employed increase on a whole although, decreasing proportions
to the scale of production. Floating form also includes the young replacing the aged
since capitalism is always striving for accumulation. This will offer a capitalist a reservoir
of disposable labor power. The floater will work a maximum amount of time and will be
paid minimum wages. The latent form is represented by those workers that are forced from
rural areas and must move to the urban areas. The stagnant population is the active labor
336 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
army, but with extreme irregular employment. Finally, the lowest form of surplus population
is the sphere of pauperism, which consists of three categories, 1) able to work, 2) orphans,
3) unable to work. The capitalist will maintain his hold over the surplus laborers. Since the
laborer is always just trying to get by he will work for whatever it takes to get by. If the
laborer does not want to work for these low wages, he will be replaced by someone else in
the surplus army of laborers.
Hans: Somne funny stuff in there, but also a few blunders.
First Message by Eddie is [48].
[958] Civic: Chapter 25 The Bountiful group (Civic, Golfer, Ranger, and Telemark Section
1 The growing demand for labor-power is a direct result of the capitalists desires to gain
accumulation at the fate of the working class. The key to the success of the capitalist is the
changes which will be discussed within the composition of Capital.
Hans: sentence structure.
Composition of capital is the value of the means of production plus the value of the laborpower,
this combined equals the sum of the total wages. A similar sense of the composition
is determined by the relationship between the mass of the means of production employed
and the mass of necessary labor for their employment.
Hans: Not a good definition. Value composition is the ratio.
The capitalist is investing in the
composition of a production. In production we see two averages in composition, the
individual composition which relates to the total capital of a branch of production, and a
social composition which would refer to all the branches of the composition.
Hans: Marx makes this distinction only to say that only the social composition matters here. No need to bring this
up in this summary.
The capitalists premiere objective in setting up a composition of production is to gain
wealth or profit. In order for the capitalist to do so he must experience growth in the variable
component. In this section, we have determined that the variable component is that of
labor-power. Labor-power is an essential factor in the composition of production to gain
accumulation. John Beller states that “for if one had a hundred thousand acres of land and
as many pounds in money, and as many cattle, without a laborer, what would a rich man
be, but a laborer”. Thus we see that the key to wealth or accumulation is not the land ,
money, or the cattle, but the surest wealth is in the multitude of laborers. The capitalists
form of accumulation is surplus-labor. This form of surplus-labor is acquired by growth in
production. This is accomplished by increasing the output of product to exceed the value of
labor-power. Therefore, it creates surplus-labor that will result in profit to the capitalist. In
a fictional example; A shoe factory requires eight pairs of shoes to be produced in order to
pay the value of labor-power, if the capitalist can exploit his work force to produce ten pairs
of shoes in the same amount of time or for the same amount of wage this excess is profit for
the capitalist.
Hans: Are you confusing surplus value and extra surplus value?
If the growth of accumulation begins to exceed the supply of labor, a rise in the wage will
occur, thus, slowing the growth of accumulation to the capitalist. If accumulation slackens
as a result of higher wages, the capitalist will exploit the laborer until the wage falls to a
level within the capitalists requirements for profits.

Section 2
U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 337
Marx states that up until this point the rise in wages has been discussed in context of
the technical composition of capital remaining constant. This discussion leads to an understanding
that a corresponding change in the technical component occurs as a result of
growth. The means of production or technology results in a change in the variable component
or the labor-power. In other words, the technical component is no longer held constant
but allowed to grow. The interesting phenomenon with growth is that it is not parallel to both
the constant component and the variable component. The constant component is allowed to
grow at a faster rate than the variable component and hence growth in technology or means
of production only comes at the expense of the labor-power. In some instances growth can
be seen in both elements, but the growth in the constant component is greater than the variable
component. This is because with an increase in technology, the laborer is now more
productive and can produce increased quantities of commodities. This higher production
will decrease the commodities value in proportion to the number of commodities produced.
The value rises absolutely, but not in proportion to the increase in the mass. The growth of
the constant component is allowed to grow faster than the growth of the variable component.
Hans: Sloppy formulations.
Marx now talks in more detail about the accumulation of capital and the process which
allows for the valorization of capital. The accumulation of capital is allowed to grow because
of the nature of capital. This valorization process allows for increasing growth of the capital
by capital. Marx talked about the nature of capital in detail in chapter 4. We see how capital
can indeed take on a life of its own. These methods allow for an accelerated accumulation
and further develop the capitalist mode of production. The capitalist mode of production
demands increasing productivity, extended scales of production, and more accelerated accumulation
of capital. This strive for increasing surplus value is a spiraling circle. The more
the modes of production develop, the more the accelerated accumulation develops and viceversa.
In a sense, this can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. The growth takes on certain
characteristics of its own and continues to feed off both aspects of the capitalist means of
production and the accelerated accumulation. Marx stated that “these two economic factors
bring about, in the compound ratio of the impulses they give each other, that change in
the technical composition of capital by which the variable component becomes smaller and
smaller as compared with the constant component”. Now we must view capital and accumulation
in terms of the social contexts and conditions surrounding it. The individual capital
components are attracted to each other in a process Marx refers to as centralization. This is a
transformation of small pieces of the pie into bigger pieces. An everyday example of this is
the growth of major corporations. Mergers and acquisitions allow smaller companies to join
and form larger ones. Larger companies will enjoy greater economies of scale in production,
thus allowing them to produce their products cheaper and underprice their competitors.
Marx said “The battle of competition is fought by the cheapening of commodities”. The centralization
process allows for extended scales of operations. Railways and other such large
tasks could only be undertaken due to centralization. Accumulation is a slower and more
gradual increase than centralization, but both have similar economic effects. Centralization
is simply a much more rapid way of raising the constant component of capital at the expense
of the variable component. Centralization is a double-edged sword. It allows for greater
338 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
capacity and means of production, but at the same time further exploits the labor resources
by diminishing the variable component.
Section 3
In many children’s playgrounds, there may be a slide which twists and turns two to three
times in downward motion. This is how section 3 appears to portray the conditions in which
the capitalists mode of production places the working class. One thing after another leads
the workers into one continual downward spiral of degradation in which there is a never
ending, “dependance of the working class upon the capitalist class.” (Marx pg. 794)
Marx starts by discussing the quantitative growth of accumulation of capital and the great
consequences on the mass of laborers employed. These results are increased by the fact that
original and additional capital cause the value of the means of production to increase at a
much higher rate than does variable capital. In the capitalist mode of production a decreasing
total value comes from labor-power and an increasing amount resulting from accumulating
means of production. Marx stated “Since the demand of labor is determined not by the extent
of the total capital but be its variable constituent alone, that demand falls progressively with
the growth of the total capital”.
Technical capital will rise, but at a constantly smaller rate, this in turn leads to a diminished
relevance in the value of labor-power. An escalating importance in the value of the
means of production results in a superfluous number of workers who succeed in the existence
of a surplus population, a group of the working class looking for employment. Accumulation
of capital and the capitalist mode of production has an additional cause and effect on the
surplus population. Many different internal and external variables make markets, production
and industries unpredictable and unstable. Marx refers to these changes as “violent fluctuations.”
If a reduction of production takes place for whatever reason, many things may occur,
one of the first of which is to cut back on the technical composition involved. If an expansion
of production occurs, then the reserve army will be called upon to fill any open positions.
Indeed a surplus population must exist and is a prerequisite of capitalist accumulation and
the capitalist mode of production. The unemployed, underemployed, semi-employed and the
constant diminution of technical composition in proportion to industrial growth will rarely,
if ever, combine to leave a shortage of reserve army from which the capitalists may retreat
to in time of need for increased labor-power. Additionally, the working class is competing
against themselves for employment. How does this happen? Workers may be forced by this
competition to provide more labor. Thus, the labor which could be broken up by two or three
workers is accomplished by just one. Furthermore, the capitalist may buy the same amount
of labor-power for a lower wage if he replaces skilled workers with less skilled. Children are
used as a replacement for more expensive men and women workers. If the workers realize
that the competition is between themselves and the reserve army, then these two groups must
unite together. They should set up trade unions in a cooperative effort to thwart the continual
diminishing affects forced upon them by the capitalist. Marx concludes by suggesting the
possible necessity of force or rebellion which may be necessary to eventually over throw the
adversities and exploitation which the capitalist asserts on the working class.
Section 4

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 339
In our example in section 1, the shoe factory serves to illustrate the domination and exploitation
of the producing workers. During periods of prosperous growth at the shoe factory,
the capitalist will hire from the relative surplus population to meet production requirements.
However, during periods of stagnation when production is decreased, workers are released
and the relative surplus population grows. This relative surplus population or “industrial reserve
army” serves as a handy convenience to the capitalist shoe factory. Subsequently this
industrial reserve army engrosses various forms. A form in which the shoe factory is sure
to take advantage of is the stagnant population. The stagnant form obliges the shoe factory
as a reserve source of disposable labor-power, and as such, a particular division for the shoe
factory’s manipulation. This stagnant form consists of superfluous, extra workers whom the
shoe factory may use only in periods of growth. Stagnant workers also come from regressing
sections of industry. In the case of the shoe factory, while the shoe industry is flourishing
they will seek more labor-power. This momentary fluctuation will use unemployed workers
from a floundering or eroding industry such as broom making.
This explanation of the stagnant portion of the industrial reserve army serves to illustrate
the disposal and exploitation of the worker. In the case of the shoe factory, methods put into
practice to increase the output of shoes come at the expense of the worker. It is intelligible
then, that the method and procedure for producing shoes determines the employment of the
worker, rather than the employed worker exercising the method of producing shoes.
Ironically, Thorstein Bunde Veblen (1857-1929), an American economist and social scientist
implicitly portrayed the capitalist as a “predator,” or “leisure,” class, which owns business
enterprises. On the other hand he portrayed the working as an “industrious” class,
which produces the goods. In one of his more illustrious and noted works, The Theory of
the Leisure Class (1899), he characterized the leisure class as parasitic and therefore harmful
to the economy. The characterization of capital as parasitic corresponds to Marx’s assertion
and reality that accumulation of wealth on one side comes at the expense and accumulation
of misery on the other.
Hans: Good in its large overview, but many details are quite sloppy.
First Message by Civic is [4].
[960] Johny: Greg Oda, Code name:Johny Aaron Graham Eric Benson The most important
factor in the fate or the working class is the composition of capital, and changes during
the process of accumulation. Composition as value is determined. Capital is divided into
the means of production (which is the material used to make the commodity) and the living
labor power (workers). Labor power is determined by mass of means of production which
is called the value composition. The living labor power is also determined by the amount of
labor necessary, which is called technical composition of capital.
Hans: These definitions do not make sense.
The total social capital of a country is composed by taking the average of all the average
composition in all branches of production. When capital grows so does the investment of
labor power. Capital produces a surplus-value that continues to grow every year, therefore
there is more demand for labor and wages may rise. There are problems with this though.
As capital continues to accumulate, more and more lower class individuals emerge. John
Bellars stated that the more laborers, the more rich men, due to the fact that it is the laborers
who make them rich. In order to make a society happy, people should become ignorant as
340 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
well as poor. The less a man wishes for the more satisfied he is. The Accumulation process
increases capital and also increases the more “labouring poor”. Here is a better explanation.
The rate of accumulation is independent, while the wages are dependant. One may be very
happy that an increase in wage occurs, but the more the increase in wage, the more unpaid
labor that same worker must create. When the accumulation begins to fall, the price of labor
also falls, which is determined by the capitalist’s self-valorization (or the fixed
Hans: This difference is not fixed
difference of money that the capitalists maintains with the labor power). Thus, the fall
in accumulation is at the expense of the laborer as opposed to the capitalist. The worker
is always the one who is being exploited, not the capitalist. This is a very good point. Although,
one may think he/she has avoided the problems with slavery, in a sense he hasn’t.
The capitalists is exploiting the worker every single day. One may think that they are free
but how can one be free if he is always being undermined by the capitalist? Capitalism is
possibly another form of slavery. The slave owner still fed, clothed, and housed the worker,
which is basically what everyone in a capitalist society works for. It may depend on ones
point of view. The growing of means of production is a direct result of the increase of productivity
of labor. Increase of productivity of labor also increases the means of production,
which directly decreases the labor power. In other words, the more productivity the workers
produces the more accumulation, the more accumulation the more means of production, the
more means of production the more people are out of jobs. The example given that the 18th
century 50% of capital was variable and 50% constant. Today, it is 7/8 percent constant and
1/8 percent variable. Concentration and Centralization are discussed in this section. Concentrations
the intention of a capitalist. This is the attempts to control a business and try
to monopolize. All capitalist are trying to do the same thing. This results in competition.
They begin to concentrate on the means of production. But, the two businesses continue to
compete and it ends up that the survival of the fittest wins. This is where centralization takes
place. A good example is John D. Rockerfeller’s impact on the oil company. He started
out small, but he began to accumulate capital, therefore he outlasted his competitor failed
because he could afford to sell his oil for much cheaper, and the others could not compete.
The survival of the fittest comes out on top. Rockerfeller would then buy their business’s and
soon monopolize the oil company. This is the process of centralization. With accumulation
development of competition occurs then credit takes place. Centralization helps speeds up
production but at the same time it diminishes the demand for labor. Hence, many people
are out of jobs. As discussed before, demand for labor falls with the growth of total capital,
because the more accumulation of capital, the more it goes into the means of production and
the less to the variable component. The increase in accumulation and centralization changes
the variable-constant relationship.
Hans: This is what Marx calles the value composition
When the total capital increases there is an apparent increase in the working population,
which on the surface looks good, but the capitalist always keeps his average requirements
for his own valorization, so the capitalist will always keep that fixed surplus rate, which
keeps the capitalist independent and the workers dependant on the capital. In the case of
the individual worker providing more labor such as overtime, his wages will increase, there
is less need for mass of labor. Therefore, the mass of labor falls and more people are out

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 341
of jobs. Moreover, skilled workers are replaced by non-skilled workers just so they don’t
have to pay as much money to the workers. So when the employed workers work more,
the reserves put more pressure on the employed, therefore keeping them under capitalist
dictation. The common thought of an economist is that wages rise when the capital rises.
This continues until labor market becomes superfluous and then wages fall and fall until we
come back to the capitalist exploiting the workers. Then the supply of labor becomes less
than the demand, thus wages rise again and they go through the same process again and
again. If new machinery is introduced, then there is a decrease in workers. Capitalist need
money to buy new machinery so it must set workers free in order to keep self valorization
intact. When the accumulation increases over the demand for labor, it increases the amount
of workers let go. Many workers don’t understand that the more they work the more capital
they are producing, thus, the less the reserve army and the more means of production are
made to replace the person who worked harder. Relative surplus population comes in four
different forms. The floating, the stagnant, pauperism and the latent are these forms. The
floating are repelled workers who are attracted again in larger masses. The stagnant workers
are the extra workers that might not even be needed. The latent work force are the workers
who are forced from rural areas into urban areas due to the increase of capitalism. The
last group are the paupers. These are the lowest form of surplus population. Much of the
reserve army is made up of pauper children. They are also the ones unable to work. They
are big targets for capitalist exploitation, because they will work for cheap. Marx gives his
extreme evaluation of the production of relative surplus values. Marx states “they distort the
workers into a fragment of man, they destroy the actual content of his labor by turning it
into a torment, they deform under which he works, they transform his life-time into working
time, and drag his wife and child beneath the wheels of the juggernaut of capital.” In Storch’s
viewpoint capitalism is a barbaric way of living . We are degraded to the max, and that in
a capitalist society, one is servile in life. In other words, he has no future, so what is the
value of life? He states that the only good thing about it is security. Marx continues to
discuss the housing exploitation for the poor. When the working class keep working harder
then the quicker capitalist accumulation takes place. The quicker this happens the worse
the housing situation becomes. Marx explains that contractors hire nomadic laborers which
exploit the soldiers of industry and as tenants. Nomadic laborers bring many diseases into
the place it goes. Do the contractors care? As long as they are making money they probably
don’t. This is a shame. Marx explains that even the highest paid working class are exploited.
He used the 1857 crisis of the London Bank, which affected many more companies short
after. Many more examples of exploitation are given but Marx has already expressed his
point. The working class continue to be exploited and the capitalist continue to get richer.
In capitalism it is a dog eat dog world. Maybe it doesn’t have to be. Much of what Marx
explains is very true. Maybe a better solution would be to somehow remove the distinction
between capitalism and socialism. There are problems in both capitalism and socialism.
Before this class, I saw everything one-sided. Capitalism is the only way. But how can one
justify Donald Trump making billions of dollars while someone else is wondering where his
next meal will be.
Hans: Did the whole chapter, not just sections 1-4, and not bad overall.
First Message by Johny is [68].
342 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
[962] Sinbad: Chapter 25, sections 1-4 Summary The fundamental aim of the text within
sections 1-4 in Chapter 25 is to study the influence of the growth of capital on the fate of the
working class. Marx executes this study by analyzing the composition of capital; the relation
of dependence between capital and wage laborers; centralization of capital; labor demand
changes with the growth of capital; and finally, the different forms of surplus population.
A central theme drawn from this text is that a capital society has a two-fold consequence.
The growth of capital shines upon the wealthy while simultaneously emiting its noxious rays
upon those in the laboring class.
Hans: Great summary
Marx explains the composition of capital as having two main parts: Capital as value and
as material. As value it is determined by the proportion in which it is divided into constant
capital or the value of means of production; and the variable capital or the value of
labor-power. Capital as material is divided into means of production and living labor-power.
Growth in capital will effect both parts as value and material. This growth produces surplusvalue
every year, it may also stimulate the capitalist to open new markets or invest in new
areas. With this accumulation of capital there may be a change in the proportion in which
surplus-value is divided into capital and revenue. This will bring about a change in the composition
of capital by which the variable component becomes smaller and smaller compared
to the constant part of capital. Marx continues with an explanation why labor-power is so
important to value of capital. Labor-power must continuously be re-incorporated into capital
as its means of enhancing the value. It cannot get free from capital. With the increase of capital
is the multiplication of the wage-laborer. This relationship is shown as a bondage of the
laborer to the capitalist. This quote from John Bellers describes the dependence, “Laborers
make men rich, so the more laborers there will be, the more rich men... the labor of the poor
being the mines of the rich.” Marx stresses that the capitalist finds his riches and strength in
the labors of the poor. To make a laboring man diligent, is to provide a moderate quantity
of money, if it is too small in quantity it will either subdue or make him desperate, or too
much will make him disrespectful and lazy. This relationship between the capitalist and the
multitude of laborious poor is very important. Without the laborers there could be no enjoyment,
and no product of any country could be valuable. The workers relation of dependence
on capital remains firm even under misfortunate conditions. Rather than increasing with the
growth of capital, the relation of dependence becomes greater in scope. The surplus value
provided by the worker is always increasing, being continually transformed into capital. The
worker receives a wage payment which enables them to make additions to their consumptions
and save a small amount of money for their future. Marx emphasizes, unfortunately
these things do not take away from the exploitation of the wage-laborer.
Hans: Now you are missing the important switch from accumulation under constant composition of capital to
accumulation with increasing organic composition,
Marx talks about the accumulation of capital and its effects on the growing number of
capitalists. It enables the capitalist to increase concentration of the means of production,
but also brings about an attraction between individual capitalists which draws them together.
This tendency to centralize makes the capitalist stronger than ever before. Centralization
supplements the work of accumulation by allowing the individual capitalists to extend their

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 343
scale of operations. It not only increases accumulation of capital it also accelerates the effects
of accumulation. These effects are the changes in composition of capital which raise
the constant portion at the expense of its variable portion, which diminishes the demand for
labor. We learn from section three that the demand for labor can vary with capital growth.
For accumulation or development of wealth, the capitalist requires a surplus population of
workers. In fact this “industrial reserve army” becomes a condition for a capitalist mode
of production. During times of great expansion, or advances in accumulation, the labor demand
increases and the surplus population must be available to thrust into action these new
ventures without taking away from old avenues of accumulation. Also within the industrial
cycle is the periods of average product activity, maybe even stagnation, there is another reformation
of the labor demand. Marx points out that under a capitalist mode of production the
number of workers may remain the same, or even fall, while the variable capital increases.
In this case the individual worker is providing more labor, his wages are increased, but the
price of labor remains the same or even falls, only more slowly than the mass of labor rises.
So increase of variable capital, in this case, creates more labor without increasing the number
of workers employed. This is the motive of the capitalist to get as much labor as he can
out of a smaller rather than a greater number of workers. If there is a smaller number of
workers, the outlay of constant capital increases in proportion to the mass of labor in force;
it there is a greater number of workers the increase in constant capital is much smaller. Also
noted, by operating with the same outlay of variable, it enables the capitalist to set in motion
more labor by greater exploitation of each individual laborer.
Hans: It seems you are picking out isolated paragraphs and paraphrase them, and then skip the rest.
In the final section Marx analyzes the three forms of the surplus population; the floating,
the latent, and the stagnant. The floating form exists in modern industries, ie. factories
and workshops. In this type of industry workers are hired and released in great numbers,
so that the number of those employed increases on the whole, although in a decreasing
proportion to the scale of production. A large portion of the floating surplus population
are male workers that have reached “retirement age” and are no longer employed by this
industry. A consequence to the reduction in male workers is that female workers grow more
rapidly than men. Another situation arises in this industry where the capitalists demand more
youthful workers and fewer adults. This leaves many skilled mature workers in the surplus
population because they are tied to this particular branch of industry. Anther consequence of
this industry is the consumption of labor-power by capital is so rapid that the worker is worn
out when he is at mid-point in his life expectancy. This worker will most likely fall into the
body of the floating surplus population. To compensate for the short life of the worker, rapid
replacement of one generation of workers for another is required in this class of population.
It is resolved by early marriages and by the reward that the exploitation of the workers’
children rests on their production. The second category of surplus population is the latent
form. This agriculture setting of population is constantly on the look-out for opportunities of
transferrying into the manufacture or urban work areas. This is because once capitalism has
taken possession of agriculture, the demand for a rural working population falls, while the
accumulation of the capital in agriculture advances. Unfortunately, a constant latent surplus
population exists because the workers are not skilled to enter the industrial workforce. So
they remain as an agriculture worker where wages are reduced to a minimum, and where
344 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
they always stand with one foot already in the swamp of poverty. The last category of
the relative surplus population is the stagnant population. It is characterized by condition
of life which sink below the average normal level of the working class, and it is this fact
which makes it a broad foundation for special branches of capital exploitation. The workers
provide a maximum of working time and receive a minimum of wages. This form of surplus
population is formulated of workers in large-scale industry and agriculture who have become
redundant, and particularly from the decaying branches of industry where handicraft is given
away to machinery and manufacture. The tail end to the surplus population is those who
dwell in poverty. They consist of those able to work but have found themselves inactive with
every crisis of trade; it includes those orphans and children of those in poverty; and lastly
those unable to work, which may include those who are unable to adapt to division of labor,
or people who have lived beyond the worker’s average life-span, or those who have become
victims of industry which increases with the growth of dangerous machinery or chemicals.
Marx states, “Pauperism is the hospital of the active labor army and the dead weight of the
industrial reserve army”. To conclude, I find the following footnote to summarize the central
message described in my opening paragraph. The relations of production in which a capital
society moves is not a simple, uniform character but rather a dual one. In the same relations
in which wealth is produced, poverty is also produced, in the same relations in which there
is development of the forces of production, there is also the development of a repressive
force; that these relations produce capital wealth for the bourgeios class while producin an
ever-growing multitude of the laboring class. “It shines upon the wealthy while casting its
violent rays upon the worker”.
First Message by Sinbad is [30].
[963] Zaskar and Chance: Chapter 25 Section 1
Marx’s intention in section one is to describe the “composition of capital” and to explain
the process of accumulation. Marx states that capital consists of both labor-power and the
value of the means of production. This concept should be easily understood. A commodity’s
value does not just equal the value of the raw materials that went into the commodity, but
also the added-value of the labor-power required.
A discussion about capital follows, and Marx explains that the average of all branches of
production give us the composition of the total social capital of a country. In addition, Marx
adds that capital always produces a surplus capital and thus an increase in the demand for
labor. Eventually, labor-power becomes a limited resource and thus wages increase. Marx
then goes into a discussion about what makes a man rich. Ultimately it is the labor power
he commands. However, my favorite expression from Marx is this statement; “...knowledge
both enlarges and multiplies our desires, and the fewer things a man wishes for, the more
easily his necessities may be supplied.” If there was one lesson in life I wish I could relearn,
or one lesson that I could teach my children in this life, it would be to control your appetite.
Life can be much more enriching if one is happy with what one has and doesn’t continue
wishing for more. As Marx states, too much [riches] makes a man insolent and lazy.
Marx continues an excellent discussion on the worker’s exploitation and dependence. I
particularly liked how he described the attitude of the buyer of labor. He states that the

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 345
buyers only aim is the valorization of his capital. Anything which increases the production
of commodities but not the price of the labor is his objective.
Marx adds a discussion about the relation of capital accumulation and wages. Most interesting
for me were two things. First, the comments by Adam Smith that a great stock with
small profits generally increases faster than a small stock with great profits. This compliments
Marx’s points of the accumulation of capital. Second, Marx points out through his
discussion that the laborer always loses. In other words, as wages rise, the only thing that
happens is the amount of unpaid labor diminishes in proportion. This then sets other events
in motion, but all in all, the worker is confined by his own production. Marx concludes and
his words say it best, “...in capitalist production, he [man] is governed by the products of his
own hands.”
Section 2
Marx main discussion in this section is an explanation of the growth of capital of the
two components. Marx refers to the technical component and the variable component of
capital accumulation. His main point seems to be that the technical component, up until
now held constant, is now allowed to grow. He discusses this issue and in the end, I believe
he concludes that the growth of the constant variable actually exceeds the growth of the
variable component on a percentage growth basis. Marx continues his discussion and talks
in greater depth about the accumulation of capital. His focus is on the process which allows
for the valorization of capital. Most interesting is Marx’s comments and discussion on how
the capitalist modes of production demand increases in productivity and in the end accelerate
the accumulation of capital. I did however, find that this discussion was somewhat difficult
to follow. In my own words, I believe Marx is trying to say that the accumulation of capital
can in effect take on a life of its own and have almost a snowball effect.
The discussion then leads to a process Marx calls centralization. In other words, things
become centralized. Small pieces of the puzzle join each other to form larger sections.
In our world, this is constantly taking place. Small companies join up with other small
companies to become more competitive or to fill a larger niche. Sometimes this allows
companies to not only diversify their risk, but to achieve economies of scale. I believe this is
what Marx had in mind because he himself said that “the battle of competition is fought by
the cheapening of commodities.” Centralization is a battle to achieve the cheapest possible
outcome of production. Marx does point out that this process of centralization does provide
for greater capacity, but it also further exploits the labor-power.
Section 3.
-As capital increases the variable component or labor power necessary increases but at a
much slower rate. -As capital increases and becomes more centralized the amount of labor
necessary to produce becomes diminished. This causes a growing surplus population. -The
amount of surplus population changes. As one technology remains the common method
used, an increase in the amount of product produced requires a proportional amount of variable
component or labor power implemented. However, as new methods are adopted, the
necessary variable component is usually diminished creating a greater surplus population.
-It is hypothesized that this surplus population is not only created by capitalism but is an
346 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
integral part of its proliferation. This readily available source of labor or surplus population
becomes a disposable industrial reserve army ready to be exploited as the capitalist
requires. -As the mass of social wealth grows, the accumulation of wealth enables capital
to be invested into many means of production. These investments feed off of themselves
into still other needs and further need for investment. Throughout this cycle capitalists can
enlist the necessary labor-power through the pool of surplus population. -The expansion and
contraction of the industrial cycles perpetuate each other feeding the absorption and relief
of workers during each respective cycle. -The notion is expanded that capitalists will exploit
its labor force, trying to get more labor out of the same number of workers. Capitalists will
replace men with women, older workers with younger, less expensive workers etc.. -New
machines added by the expanse of capitalism is sometimes believed to “set free” workers
indicating that somehow the capital is set free for the workers. In fact, these machines often
times become the replacements for these workers, which adds to the surplus population.
-Interestingly, as workers figure out that the more they work the more “alien” wealth they
produce and the more their labor becomes productive that they put themselves in the precarious
situation of making their labor very competitive.
Section 4
During periods of prosperity, capitalists will hire from the relative surplus population to
meet their production needs. Conversely, however, during periods of stagnation workers are
released and the relative surplus population grows. This relative surplus population a.k.a.
“industrial reserve army” serves as a convenient resource to the capitalist. Subsequently,
this reserve takes many forms. A form that is commonly exploited by capitalists is the
stagnant population. The stagnant population makes itself accessible to the capitalist as
a readily available source of labor power to be manipulated. This stagnant form consists
of superfluous, extra workers whom enterprise uses during periods of growth. Stagnant
workers also come from regressing sections of industry. For example, a booming mining
industry may hire individuals from a depressed cotton industry. It is interesting that in all of
these cases Marx asserts that the accumulation of wealth by one group always comes at the
expense and misery of the working class under a capitalistic society.
First Message by Zaskar is [63].
[964] Ann, Pegasus, Hippie, Makarios, Titania, Vida, and Scarlett: Section 1: A
Growing Demand for Labor-Power Accompanies Accumulation if the Composition of Capital
Remains the Same In Section 1 of Chapter 25, Marx wants to look at how the growth
of capital affects the working class. He starts out by defining a number of terms. First, he
divides capital into constant and variable. Constant capital is the value of the means of production
and variable capital is the value of labor-power. He then distinguishes between value
composition, technical composition and organic composition of capital. Value composition
is the mass of the means of production. Marx calls the value composition of capital the
organic composition when it refers to the technical composition of capital and the change in
this. Technical composition is the mass of labor necessary for the employment of the means
of production.
Marx states that growth in capital means growth in labor power, capital’s variable part.
Capital produces surplus value continuously. If the growth in capital exceeds the growth in

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 347
labor power, the demand for labor will exceed it’s supply and thus wages will rise. The more
capital that is accumulated the more capitalists and the more workers are going to be created.
Marx says that “Accumulation of capital is therefore multiplication of the proletariat”
(Capital, p. 764).
To illustrate how capital and workers are related under the capitalist system, Marx notes
the ideas of John Bellers, Bernard de Mandeville and Sir F. M. Eden. They believe that
workers are needed because they are the ones that will realize the potential value of capital.
Therefore it is important to give them enough to subsist, but not enough to save, so that they
will be kept at the same level. They should neither be affluent nor desperate. Marx is saying
that the capitalist system is basically fooling the worker into believing that he is living a
good life. He is given enough wages so that he can enjoy himself. Really, the worker is
becoming more and more dependent of the system.
The aim of the buyer is to get his capital to valorize. Therefore, he will want to get more
labor than what he paid for. This is needed for him to make profits. Marx says that “Wages,
as we have seen, imply by their very nature that the worker will always provide a certain
quantity of unpaid labor” (Capital, p. 769). When wages increase, the amount of unpaid
labor that the worker has to supply decreases, but the worker still has to do some unpaid
work. Therefore, there will always be accumulation of capital. Marx gives the following
alternatives: 1) The price of labor may keep rising due to the fact that it is not interfering
with accumulation of capital. 2) If the price of labor gets too high and interferes with the
accumulation, the system will automatically lower wages and thus restore equilibrium. Marx
concludes that the capitalist system is fooling the worker into believing that he is living well,
when he is in fact being exploited. The capitalist will always get more out of the worker than
he invests.
Section 2:
In section 2 of ch 25, Marx illustrates how the worker has gone from “being the master
of capital-as its creator-to being its slave.” This process is described as the diminution of the
variable part of capital, and is characterized by a continual increase in worker productivity
and general growth of the economy. As we know from chapter 12 and section 1 of chapter
25, the increase in productivity is driven by the capitalists desire for relative surplus-value,
or profit, with higher productivity further driving the accumulation and concentration of
capital. As this capital is accumulated, industries begin to specialize, thereby allowing for
the cheapening of commodities, greater level of production, and greater utilization of the
means of production, i.e. raw materials and machinery. The capitalist then begins to allot
more capital to means of production than to labor, so that, keeping labor fixed, a greater
level of production is achieved, but at the cost of cheapening the products themselves. The
capitalist then sells these products, but not for the individual value of producing that product,
but for the social value, or market price, thereby reaping a profit, or relative surplus-value
(ch 12). As this process is repeated over and over again, eventual cooperation of individual
capitalists is inevitable. This cooperation leads to large-scale production, which in turn
will further increase production and cheapen labor, as well as increase profits for individual
capitalists. With this, the constant part of capital becomes more concentrated, relative to
the variable-part. The original investors in the large-scale cooperation become very wealthy,
348 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
and soon, these original capitals begin to function new and independent capitals, capable of
being utilized in new markets or industries. Marx states that two features characterize this
kind of concentration of accumulation. First, all things remaining equal, the ownership of
the means of production, for society in general, is gradually transferred to the capitalists,
with the exception of the wealth owned by society. Secondly, this concentration of the
accumulated wealth is divided among many mutually independent capitalists, who compete
with each other.
As this process continues, Marx states that “Capital grows to a huge mass in a single
hand in one place, because it has been lost by many in another place.” Yet, at the same time,
this accumulated capital drives individual capitalists away from each other with competition.
What Marx is saying here is that the accumulated wealth flows to a small number of capitalists
because, through innovation of larger firms, profit and capital are taken away from
the many smaller capitalists. For example, a large company can produce on a much greater
scale than a smaller company can. The larger firm also has more capital to allot to newer
production processes, resulting in a higher productivity than that of the smaller firm. With
this relatively higher productivity, the large firm is more capable of cheapening commodities
below the social-value. So, through large scale production, capital is taken away from the
smaller firms, flowing to large firms as relative surplus-value.
When capitalist production has developed to this point, a new mechanism comes into
play. The credit system, as described by Marx, begins as merely a mechanism by which
further accumulation takes place. As this mechanism becomes more developed, however, it
becomes an important tool for competition that ultimately leads to greater centralization of
capital.
In summary, we can now see how capitalist production starts out small and grows over
time. The incentive of relative surplus-value, or profits, leads to increasing scale of production,
with the cheapening of both commodities and the value of labor as a result. Competition
for profits between capitalists leads to concentration and centralization of capital in the hands
of relatively few capitalist who out-competed many others with smaller scales of production.
Centralization speeds up the process od accumulation, as well as the rate at which productivity
rises. The final results of accumulation, in terms of workers, are that less and less of
the variable part of is employed relative to the constant part, as the magnitude, or scale of
production increases. Furthermore, as the accumulated capital is recirculated into more efficient
means of production, more and more workers are pushed away as more commodities
can be produced by fewer workers, i.e. layoffs as workers are displaced by new technology.
Section 3: The Progressive Production of a Relative or Industrial Reserve Army
In Section Three of Chapter 25, Marx outlines the origin and (datestring)un(/datestring)
natural progression of a “Relative Surplus Population or Industrial Reserve Army.” He details
capitalism’s cruel psychological enslavement of a dispensable portion of society fostered
merely to satiate the system whose survival depends on proletarian ignorance. Though
this statement seems excessive, Marx’s argument categorically proves capitalism’s intentional
oppression of the working class. Although this despotism may be masked as concern
for the general welfare of laborers, Marx exposes this fraudulent interest as capitalism

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 349
merely providing for its own preservation. Marx begins his analysis by studying the interaction
between labor and rising amounts of capital. He states that as levels of capital
rise, the need for labor power diminishes, quite obviously. However, the capitalist model
of production (incorporating continually rising amounts of capital) progresses at a more accelerated
rate than variable capital is capable. Consequently, production, which was once
equal to labor power, now grows at an exponential rate, where variable capital is limited to
linear progression. Simply stated, capital and labor cannot simultaneously progress. Marx
explains that as population continues to grow, and capital is introduced to production, a surplus
population will arise. He states that, “Capital continues to grow for a time on its existing
technical basis, and attracts additional labor-power in proportion to its increase, [however] at
other times, it undergoes organic change and reduces its variable component.” (p. 782) The
surplus population, or Industrial Reserve Army, will always provide relief to the economy,
whether it be providing additional workers for an expansionary period, or accepting unemployed
laborers displaced by new capital or shifts in the economy. Unfortunately, the surplus
population while providing for themselves, create their own demise. They contribute toward
the accumulation of capital, and hence, simultaneously contribute to their own distensibility.
Laborers make machines today which tomorrow take their jobs. Most ironic, though, is the
worker’s inability to recognize the capitalists’ double edged sword: not only is the worker
creating goods for wages below the worth of his value, but he is producing machinery which
will temporarily eliminate his utility in society. This despotism is similar to an innocent
man, wrongly found guilty of a crime, being forced to build his own prison. Though he did
nothing wrong, he is being forced to invoke his own oppression.
The use for labor from the Industrial Reserve Army is cyclical. Marx states that, “Modern
industry’s whole form of motion depends on the constant transformation of a part of
the working population into unemployment or semi-employment’s hands.” (p. 786). He
rationalizes/justifies his assertions by stating that “even Malthus recognizes that a surplus
population is necessary of modern industry.” Because “the conversion of revenue into capital”
so easily occurs, yet labor power could require 16-18 years to mature, an economy
is probably more likely to have the funds necessary for investment before labor is able to
provide actual production, states Malthus. Although capitalism may need to wait for skilled
workers, Marx states that less qualified laborers will replace those more capable, “mature labor
power [will be replaced by] immature, male by female, and adults by children.” (p. 788)
Though this argument may surprise the reader, as common sense states that collusion among
the Industrial Reserve Army would be beneficial, capitalism obscures what would normally
be translucent. “Capitalism increases its supply of labor more quickly than its demand for
workers,” and consequently, unemployed individuals pressure peers who have work. Laborers
have displaced their anger with capitalists and blame members of the proletariate who
are allowed the temporary luxury of work. Laborers even allow their wages to be determined
by the expansion and contraction of the Industrial Reserve Army. Fear of losing one’s job
to another who will happily work for the given wage creates animosity among the working
class; another deceitful ploy by capitalists to maintain control through chaos. Though this
scenario seems bleak, Marx does provide one assertion which inspires hope. He states that
workers will soon recognize and understand the system which has fostered their oppression.
350 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
The proletariate will “discover the degree of intensity of the competition amongst themselves”
and create trade unions to make order of the social chaos and psychological anarchy
once forced upon them by capitalists.
Section 4: Different Forms of Existence of the Relative Surplus Population. The General
Law of Capitalist Accumulation.
In the fourth section of Chapter 25, Marx discusses the different forms of the relative
surplus population. He focuses on the forms that appear in times of crisis. When the market
is in a slump, Marx ’s relative surplus population is identifiable in three forms: the floating,
the latent, and the stagnant.
Marx does not explicitly define these terms, but the definitions are implicit in the text.
The floating segment is the group who were working at one time, but have become unfit
for the industry, and follow the capital, searching for work. The latent are those who have
not been previously engaged in the manufacturing industry, but are being forced to integrate
themselves in to the capitalist manufacturing system. The stagnant form are those who have
extremely irregular employment, and are being used by the capitalists as “disposable labor.”
Marx first discusses the “floating” segment. This group is essentially created from innovations.
The workers are trained to do a certain job, and nothing else. When machinery is
invented to make the production less labor intensive, the worker and his skills become obsolete.
Another element of the floating segment arises from the demand for youthful laborers.
The workers are employed until they reach maturity and then are dismissed. The nature of
their labor has chained them to the particular industry that they participate in. Innovation
or their advanced age makes them unemployable in their particular industry. Capitalism has
transformed them from the active labor force to the surplus population. These workers are
forced to move around, following the capital, in hopes of finding employment. The members
of the “latent” group have also been displaced by the capitalist system. Marx characterizes
the latent form as on the verge of establishing themselves as a part of the manufacturing proletariat.
This group is a result of the capitalist takeover of the agricultural industry. When
agriculture became “capitalized” those who were formerly engaged in agriculture were no
longer needed. In order to become more “efficient,” the capitalists applied the same techniques
used in non- agricultural industries, and do away with the need for many workers. As
a result, these workers have no means of survival, and seek jobs in the industrial sector.
Marx’s third category is the stagnant population. The stagnant population is characterized
by the irregular employment of an active labor force. This segment gives the capitalist a
source of disposable labor. Their disposability, leaves them vulnerable to capitalist exploitation.
The nature of this exploitation can be described as “maximum of working time and a
minimum of wages.”
The lowest segment of Marx’s surplus population is the group that dwells in pauperism.
The relative surplus population that dwells in this pauperism consists of three categories.
These are: those able to work, orphans and pauper children, and those unable to work. This
group, as the “industrial reserve army” becomes a necessity of capitalism. The third category
is usually made up of former workers who are the “victims of industry.” They are now too
old, too sick, or too mangled by work to be of use to the capitalists any more. The first two

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 351
categories, on the other hand, form the lowest of the industrial reserve army, and will be
called to work only in times of prosperity. Pauperism is essentially a dumping ground for
the victims of the capitalist. According to Marx, the effect of capitalism on the worker is to
“degrade him to the level of an appendage of a machine.” The result of capitalism is that the
worker no longer has control over his labor or his life. The capitalist dominates the worker
in order to control produce wealth. Marx sees this industrial reserve army as a necessity of
capitalism. The greater the capacity for producing, the greater the need for excess workers,
waiting in the wings. In order for capital and wealth to accumulate, this surplus of workers
must be readily available for production. As a result, the nations with the most wealth, have
the largest number of people in misery.
Group Members: Section 1: Ann, Pegasus
Section 2: Hippie, Makarios
Section 3: Titania
Section 4: Vida, Scarlett
First Message by Ann is [20].
[965] Translat: Chapter 25 There must be three pre-existing circumstances to capitalism;
large numbers of “free laborers”, people who are not part of production or workers who
don’t own the means of production. As the farmer was forced off the farm and into the
urban areas searching for work, capitalist were able to exploit this new source of labor.
The farmer no longer had any commodities to trade for their necessities. The only thing
that they had was their own labor. Yet, this lead to an alienation of the worker. They no
longer owned or even had an investment in the means of production or in the product they
were producing. Individuals express their lives and who they are in their production. They
identify themselves with what they produce and how they produce things. The capitalist
system is self-perpetuating. Because there is a labor/production force, there is also a “home”
market. The workers work for a company, they receive money as compensation, they spend
the money in the economy and go back to work for more money. It becomes a vicious cycle.
Marx set forth a C-M-C concept. Although it was stated that labor is not a commodity(1), in
the sense of a trade or barter, it can be viewed as an item to be exchange for money which
money is then put back into the economy for needed items; thus C-M-C. As technology
increases, there is always a sense of wanting to out do the competition. As companies
upgrade their equipment in an effort to obtain the market advantage and to be able to produce
faster, the competition will, within a short-time, be able to also upgrade and the market will
again be balanced. However, a side outcome will be that the smaller businesses will not be
able to compete and will eventually be driven out of business; the survival of the fittest. The
workers will suffer from this sort of rivalry in that less workers are needed and some will be
forced on to the roles of the unemployed. With unemployment growing, the capitalists, in the
long run, also will realize a smaller profit since there will be no paychecks to buy their goods.
The cycle continues; every time there is an upgrade, there will be more of the labor force
pushed out to become the disposable industrial reserve army. Relative surplus population(2)
consists of those who are unemployed or partially employed(3). They become a reserve for
the needs of capital. It must be remembered that the more rapidly a town grows, so does
the proportion of this surplus population. This increased population supplies an increase
352 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
of workers resulting in an excess. The result is fewer jobs, less pay, more unemployed, and
more doing without the necessities of life. The distribution of scarce resources is inadequate.
People live in deplorable conditions with little or no hope causing conflict. These are the
conditions that prompted England to establish their Poor Laws. People were virtually forced
into workhouses to be off the street and not labeled as vagabonds. These were not just males,
but females and children were also forced into this bondage. As laborors make their bosses
rich, the banks came upon the idea of credit. Letters of credit or bills of exchange were past
around so that large amounts of cash would not be carried(4). The bank would also go to
different companies and buy their outstanding debts at a lesser amount than face value. They
then could collect the full amount of the debt and make a profit. They would also keep a
minimal amount in the bank and advance loans(5). Bank transactions serve as capital. This
credit is in reality fictitious capital(6). Since commodity exchange could now be effected
through credit, the seller could delay receiving payment and the buyer delays payment; with
a small cost, i.e., interest. This interest is a fierce master, but is very lucrative for banks
and lenders. It works to keep the poor, poor and make the bankers and lenders richer. As
a child I heard a saying about interest, but I can’t remember it all. It said that interest
doesn’t produce anything, it is non-emotional, it never sleeps and can be all consuming and
enslaving. Interest can act as another mechanism in keeping the proletariat in the class they
are in. In conclusion, by adopting techniques that achieve greater productivity, capitalists
avoid the shrinking working-class population until it becomes too small for the needs of
capital. The excess of unemployment is more favorable to the formation of surplus value
and to the relentless quest of accumulation. FOOTNOTES (1) In this sense their labor power
becomes a commodity to be bargained with and paid for. (2) This population has three forms:
Floating=those that float in and out of employment on a constant basis; Latent=those coming
into the capital system from agricultural areas; Stagnant=active labor army, who are not
regularly employed. (3) There is a fourth division, what Marx calls the “lumpenproletariat”.
They are able to work, orphans or paupers, demoralized and unable to work from incapacity
of adaptation. (4) Can be compared to checks with the exception that they were issued
directly from the bank. (5) Much like present day banking. (6) Such as the national debt.
First Message by Translat is [65].
[966] Frosty: Paper from frosty, dubbel, yoda, mikey Section I. A Growing Demand for
Labour-Power Accompanies Accumulation it the Composition of Capital Remains the Same
Composition of capital can be understood in two aspects: as value and material. As value,
capital is divided into both the value of labor-power and means of production. As material,
capital can ve divided into the labor-power and the means of production itself. There is a
connection between these two aspects. As capital increases, the demand for labor as well
as the subsistence wage increases at the same rate. But, the necessary means of the growth
of capital may go beyond the growth of labor-power or demand for labor for a couple of
reasons: 1) as capital grows, more surplus is added to the original capital 2) new markets
are created in order to gain capital. As time passes, the number of workers multiply. There
will reach a point when the necessary means of accumulation will exceed labor supply and
evetually wages will begin to rise.
Hans: no, that is not at all the mechanism

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 353
Essentially, as the number of workers multiply, capital increases because according to
Marx, accumulation of capital is ... multiplication of wage-labore. Adam Smith, Riccardo,
John Bellers, and other economists agree with the notion that a capitalist is nothing without
laborers, therefore, capital grows as the number of workers increase. For example, if GM
had no workers to manufacture cars, the company would not be operative and there would
be no capital accumulation. Because GM has thousands of workers, it is possible to maunufacture
automobiles and sell it in the market. These workers provide labor power, which
in turn, makes the accumulation of capital possible for the owner (or stockholders). So as
workers make capitalists richer, the number of workers increase. This process of multiplication
makes the capitalist even richer than before. This seems to be a circle of ongoing
process. But Marx adds that the accumulation of capital not only increases captital and the
number of worker also increases the number of the working poor. The assumption of the accumulation
process so far seems to be advantageous for the workers, but as wages increases
and the worker can buy more things,the capitalist is actually exploiting these workers just
as slaves were exploited by their owners. Wages imply that workers will always provide
a certain amount of unpaid labor. An increase in wages merely means that the amount of
unpaid labor will decrease. Lets say, for example, that a worker is receiving a wage of $10
an hour and works forty hours a week. Lets also assume that he is happy with $400 a week.
If his wage increased to $20 an hour, the worker would only have to work 20 hours a week
and be better off because he is now receiving the same amount for half as much work. This
worker would not want to work more than 20 hours a week unless he valued more money
higher than his time. When price of labor increases as a result of th accumulation process of
capital, Marx implies alternatives: 1) Price of labor keeps rising because the rise has no interference
with the accumulation process; 2) Rise in price of labor causes the accumulation
of capital to slowdown. These alternatives are reflected as relative movements of the “mass
of exploitable labor power.” The law of capitalist production can be explained as this: The
relationship among capital, accumulation, and the wage rate is merely the relationship between
unpaid labor, made into capital, and additional paid labor for the additional capital. It
is also the relationship between paid and unpaid labor in the same working population. Section
II: A Relative Diminution of the Variable Part of Captital Occurs in the Course of the
Further Progress of Accumultation and of the Concentration Accompanying it Marx states
from Economist it is not the social wealth or magnitude of capital that leads to the rise of
the wage, however it comes from the accumulaton of growth. From this the capitalist system
of accumulation is reached in the development of the productivity of social labor. Marx
states this as the “most powerful lever of accumulation.” We see the whole spectrum of this
meaning to produce more by the reduction of labor through the accumulation of captital.
Excluding skill and natural conditions the focus of social productivity of labor is expressed
as the means of production of one worker plus time to produce a product. This labor process
is increased with the introduction of machinery and materials as factors of increasing productivity.
Overall, it appears as getting more out of the labor power producing more. This
is seen as a condition of consequences, which Marx explains. This repercussion being due
to the alteration of the machinery and technology consequently the labor is reduced. The
second role is the condition. This being the mass of “machinery, mineral and other types of
machinery.” This requires some type of labor. These all increase labor productivity. However,
whether consequence or condition, the mass of means of production all are increases
354 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
in the productivity of labor. This is a comparison of the mass means of production with the
mass of labor-power. From the comparison reflects “the value composition by the increase
of the constant constituents of capital at the expense of its variable constituents.” Marx uses
the example of 50% for means of production and 50% for labor power, but with the development
of productivity of labor, this will alter the percentages to 80% means of production and
20% labor power. This law of growth is a progressive part of the capitalist comparison. An
example of this might be the auto industry. The growth of this industry, we believe, reflects
the change of these percentages of production and labor-power. The mass means of production
in this industry have become altered due to the conditions and consequences involved.
The auto industry is out to increase labor productivity and its means. This is benefitting the
capitalists. This comparison also shows the relative magnitude that represents the value of
means of production or as Marx says, “the constant parts of capitalism.” The relative magnitude
is decreased by the progress of accumulation but this does not necessarily exclude a rise
in the absolute magnitude. These methods of increase in social productivity of labor are also
ways for increased production of surplus value. Elements of acculuation present a conditon
for capitalists form of production. From this may result in an accelerated form of accumulation
of capital. This transition from old traditional ways of production are altered to achieve
this accelerated accumulation. With the use of surplus value to create capital, a company is
using profits to expand and increase their production and services. This is the company using
their resources to accelerate their efforts to grow. All of this results in the mass production
of products and companies using their resources to increase their growth. From these two
factors, there will be an effect on the variable components making them smaller and smaller
in relation to the constant component. This is alos due to the technical composition of the
capital. “With the increasing mass of wealth of which functions as capital, accumulation
increases the concentration of that wealth in the hands of individual capitalists, and thereby
widening the basis of production on a large scale and extends the specifically capitalists
methods of production. The growth of the social capital is accomplished through the growth
of many individual capitals” (776). Here Marx is explaining the use of individual capital
growing into expanded form by increasing production. This would influence the social form
that will be increased by this growth. There are two features that concentrate on the accumulation
of growth. First, “The increasing concentration of the social means of production is in
the hands of individual capitalists with other things remaining equal, limited by the degree of
increase of social wealth. Second, the part of the social capital domiciled in each particular
sphere of production is divided among many capitalists who confront each other as mutually
independent and competitive commodity producers.” (776) These individuals are competing
to produce the most for the least amount. This might limit their immediate social wealth, but
the more efficient they become, their is the view that the wealth will be there. From this Marx
shows the two sides of accumulation. One side concentrates on the means of production and
a command over labor and the other side concentrates on the difference between individual
capitals from eachother, which is opposite from the first side. This means that the one side
is controlling the labor force and focusing on the production of their product. The other side
is focusing on the opposing force between the individual capitalist. From all of this discussion,
Marx reminds us that with the development of the capitalists mode of production, there
is a necessary increase in the amount of individual capital to run a business. Competition,
which enters into the focus, is in direct proportion to the norm and inverse proportion to the

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 355
magnitude of rival capitalists. A result of this competition is that many small capitalists are
dissolved into bigger forms which may develop into a new capitalist force. Marx expresses
this as THE CREDIT SYSTEM. This is a weapon among the battle of competitive capitalists
and is transformed to centralization of capital. Marx explained that with capitalist production
and accumulation, there is also the power of centralization. This is both competition
and credit. These are powerful machines that create needs and give technical support for
industrialization. This power and a degree of the magnitude of capital wealth advance the
process of centralization. So what is the difference between these forms of concentration
and centralization? Marx says the difference is that the advance of centralization does not
depend in anyway on a positive growth in the magnitude of social captital. Concentration
is dependent on this positive growth. Centralization also is a change in the distribution of
existing capital. We understand centralization to be the more powerful form because it does
not depend on the magnitufe but it takes many varied forms of capital and uses their force
to create a stronger unit of growth and production. Concentration on the other hand depends
on other variables that weakens its power. Next, Marx reflects on centralization in relation
to accumulation. This is seen by industrial capitalists extending their scale of operation.
This is also seen by mergers and the fusion of the number of capitalists. The economic
effect stays constant from the action as it results in collective labor, expanding with more
scientific and better methods of production. Accumulation is a much slower process than
centralization. Centralization only changes the quantitative grouping of the parts of social
capital. Marx uses the example of building a railroad, and its collaboration of powers, labor
technology, and uses of joint stock companies as a result of centralization. From this, the
masses of capital are fused together to result in new powers of social accumulation. We
see centralization as the accelerated form of accumulation. We feel this is easier to identify
with in today’s economy. We hear of many joint ventures and mergers that manipulate these
resources to expand. A member of this group works for such a company that controls interest
in many different spectrums of the economy. From this section, it is our understanding
that Marx dissects the growth processes that capitalists have used for their own gain. We
believe that too much growth is harmful. Accumulation seems to draw away from more
labor and centralization eliminates the workers already in existance. All this seems to be a
view that the capitalists’ society will self destruct. Section III: The Progressive Production
of a Relative Surplus Population or Industrial Army The accumulation of capital comes to
fruition through a qualitative change in its composition and through a continuing increase
of its constant component at the expense of its variabel component. The capitalist mode of
production equals the organic composition of capital which develops quicker than growth of
social wealth. Money spent twoards expansion and technological changes grow hand in hand
with a change in technological composition of the original capital. Being that the demand
for labor is determined by its variable constituent alone, the demand falls progressively with
the growth of total capital instead of rising in proportion to it. This process also works in
the opposite direction. This process is needed to absorb an additonal number of workers
and to keep employed those already with jobs. The working population produces both the
accumulation of capital and the means by which it is itself make relatively superfluous and
does this at an extent which is always increasing. This in known as the law of population of
the capitalist mode of production. If a surplus population of workers is a necessary product
of accumulation or of the development of wealth on a capitalist basis, this surplus population
356 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
also becomes the lever of capitalist accumulation and becomes a condition for the existence
of the capitalist mode of production. It forms a disposable industrial reserve army, which belongs
to capital just as if the latter had bred it at its own cost. It also creates a mass of human
is ready for capitalist exploitation. The development of the capitalist mode of production,
which is the cause and effect of accumulation, enables the capitalist to set in motion more
labor by greater exploitation of each individual labor power. Marx mentions more than once
that technology is dangerous for a capitalist society because he believes it takes away from
human capital, however the production of a relative surplus population proceeds still more
rapidly than the technical transformation of the production that accompanies the advance of
accumulation and is accererlated by it. The industrial reserve army, during periods of stagnation
and average prosperity, weighs down the active army of workers. The relative surplus
population is therefore the background against which the law of supply and demand of labor
functions. Section IV: Different Forms of Existence of the Relative Surplus Population. The
General Law of Accumulation. In dealing with relative surplu population, Marx starts out
with three forms that everyone is a part of at sometime in their life. These three forms are:
the floating, the latent, and the stagnant. The first form is the easiest to explain. As new machines
and modern industrialization come into play, it pushes people out of the labor force.
Many of these people that were unemployed have a number of the same skills. Marx also
mentions people that are pushed out of their jobs and replaced by younger workers. Both of
these examples are floating forms of relative surplus population. In explaining the second
form, Marx does it in such a way that is hard to understand. The working or labor force
are people who are trying to make a change from farmer to factory worker. Marx goes on
to say that they are able to barely stay above the pauper society. They have one foot in the
water and do their best to keep the other foot out. The stagnant form is where capitalists get
most of their surplus population in a labor army. This is where you sink below the average
level of the working class. You work very long hours for very little pay. This is alos the
fastest growing form. But, more babies are born in this group of the working class. There
is a sediment of relative surplus population that Marx call the lowest form-charity. This is
divided up into three categories: those who are able to work, orphan and pauper children,
and the people who are unable to work. Many are those who are unable to live beyond
a workers average life span, and some are victims of working accidents as a result of the
growing need of machines by the capitalist. As all of these three categories grow the mass
of relative surplus population also grows. The industrial reserve army increases. As surplus
population grows, this is all part of capitalism and forms a condition of capitalist production
and the development of wealth. This is a cost in the capitalist pocket book, but somehow
they are always able to transfer that cost onto the working class. This is done so that the capitalist
doesn’t have to pay anything out of his own pocket. All these things working together
to help the capitalist is called the law of capitalist accumulation. As capitalists use all the
forms mentioned, they control the surplu population. Capitalists are always on the winning
end. They increase their worth by making others worse off, or at least making it so that they
don’t progress towards the upper classes. As the relative surplus population grows, it only
makes itself worst off. They work all their life and still go nowhere. Hopefully, they will be
able to have a job to supply basic needs until their life comes to an end. For there are many
that never recover from losing their jobs, and have to go out and hunt or fight for the daily
needs for themselves and their families. Group members: Frosty Dubbel Yoda Mikey

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 357
Hans: Instead of giving the logical structure, it is a wordy paraphrase. Not impressed.
First Message by Frosty is [1].
[967] Asmith, Cmanson, and Tuan: From Asmith, Cmanson, Tuan Accumulation, Concentration,
and Centralization The capitalist extracts surplus value from the working class.
Instead of consuming all of this surplus value (profit), the capitalist accumulates some of
this surplus value as capital. The function of retaining a portion of the production (not consuming
it) is a necessary function. Someone, even in a socialistic society has to take some of
the value produced through the labor process and save it to be used to buy machinery, plants
and equipment. Also, if credit is to exist someone has to provide it (capital as social wealth).
The surplus value that is not consumed becomes capital in two forms; capital as an army of
labor (machines, equipment, etc..) and capital as social wealth (stocks and bonds, money,
etc..).
Hans: But now you are ignoring the main theme of this chapter: where does the labor come from?
The capitalist uses her capital to accumulate more capital. Creating more surplus value
and since she continues to reinvest and not consume all of the surplus value she continues to
accumulate more capital. As the capital that the capitalist controls increases, she has more
and more capital to reinvest in machinery, in stocks, and as money to loan, etc. The rich get
richer, the accumulation continues, and the plot thickens.
Now, the poor sap who is producing surplus value for capitalist has a proportionately
smaller share of the wealth. The income disparity gap widens. As the accumulation of
capital increases, the capital investment per worker also increases. The rising ratio of capital
per worker (machinery, tractors etc. per worker) increases unit production per man hour.
More is produced with less labor-power input (less labor-power per unit). This concentration
of capital in the labor process reduces the need for labor-power. The poor sap who worked
hard to produce surplus value for his capitalist boss gets replaced by a machine that can
do the work of a hundred such as he. Machinery serves the capitalist to maintain as Marx
calls it, “a relative reserve population or industrial reserve of labor.” This is human labor
(unemployment), the machinery is itself a non-human army of labor.
It is through the labor process that capital is concentrated with the capitalists. Centralization
of capital, however, is made possible through competition and credit.
Competition favors large scale investments because of their lower per unit costs of production.
A small competitor is likely to get sucked up by a big producer, for several reasons.
Since the more capitalized larger firm (with more accumulated capital) will be more likely
to have a lower per unit cost of production, it will be difficult for the smaller company to
compete. If any company is to compete, it will be necessary for them to lower their costs of
production by increasing their surplus value, which must be reinvested as capital in the form
of machinery, plant and equipment. To be competitive it is necessary to extract as much
surplus value as possible through the labor pro cess. Any company that is not able to remain
profitable will not be able to reinvest in capital to further reduce per unit costs, and will thus,
not be able to compete with other more profitable firms. This leads to a reduction of firms
in the market. It is not necessary for firms to voluntarily merge. The market will destroy
the weak and only the strong, well capitalized will survive. The survivors will be fewer,
and fewer, and larger and larger. The centralization of capital is accomplished as described
358 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
through these competitive forces. The availability of more credit to more capitalized firms
makes it more and more difficult for a less capitalized firm to compete. The more collateral
the company has the more people are willing to lend the company money. The lent money
is borrowed capital, reinvested to keep the means of production productive, and increasingly
more productive. The availability of credit makes it even more difficult for less-capitalized
companies to compete.
Concentration of capital through the labor process, centralization of capital through competition,
and credit, work together to widen the gap between the haves and the have nots.
Marx say that, “Capital grows to a huge mass in a single hand in one place, because it has
been lost by many in another place.” (Capital pp. 777) and fewer capitalist will control the
means of production. He would say that increased productivity and mechanization will lead
to increased unemployment.
Hans: No, he would not say that technology but the social relations of production lead to unemployment.
Flat and thoughtless apology of capitalism.
First Message by Asmith is [161], First Message by Cmanson is [696], and First Message by Tuan is [517].
[968] Braydon: I did not write the paper as a group. I did it all on my own, so please keep
in mind I am a very simple writer:) Here it is....
This will include simple interpretations, experiences and opinions. I find it is the best
way for me to learn and understand Marx. For an average reader with no philosophical
background a simpler approach is necessary. I believe the annotations you have written are
helpful, but need to be much simpler for those that want to read Capital without having an
extensive educational background. For example, I thought it was very helpful when you
explained the various definitions of the values, absolute, magnitude, use and so forth. It
would be helpful if those were included in the annotations. Comprehending the first few
chapters is important in understanding what Marx is getting at in his writings. I felt the rest
of the chapters were easier to understand, perhaps because I was used to the jargon. It has
been a good experience for me and I thank you for the format of the class. It helped me think
and decipher different views and terms. On to the first section:
We need to understand the composition of capital to begin with. One side is value and
the other is material, each have a distinct function in the process of production. The value or
the value-composition is “determined by the proportion in which it is divided into the value
of the means of production and the value of labor power,” or constant capital divided by
variable capital, which would involve the sum total of all wages. The material or technicalcomposition
is comprised of or is a relationship of “the mass of the means of production
employed and the mass of labor necessary for their employment.” This is self-explanatory.
Now, the growth of capital depends greatly on the variable capital, the part invested in labor
power. Surplus value must be turned into an “additional labor fund,” or a reserve army,
which I will discuss in section 3. We could have a condition of a rise in wages if the surplus
value increases by an increase in the surplus capital, perhaps by an opening of a new market.
The demand for laborers would exceed the supply, thus wages would rise and more labor
power would or could be required. “Accumulation of capital is, therefore an increase in the
proletariat.” Proletariat meaning the working class or the wage laborer. I found the footnote
interesting on the bottom of page 673. Laborers being let go when production has reached

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 359
a stagnant level. We see this happening so much today, layoffs due to spending cuts or
production having to fall because demand has.
I also found the quote interesting by John Bellers. Capitalists need those that are poor to
work for wages to create more rich men. Marx states in this section that “...the command
of labour which distinguishes the opulent from the labouring part of the community.” I wish
those that owned the production process would actually realize and understand this, perhaps
better working conditions could be created for all.
I wanted to comment on the statement by Mandeville. “... it is in the interest of all
rich nations(which we are), that the greatest part of the poor should almost never be idle,
and continually spend what they get.” One of my first jobs was driving an ice cream truck
and I soon discovered that the most lucrative area was the poorest part of town. They would
continually buy on an everyday basis handfuls of treats. I would always wonder why they did
not go across the street to the grocery store to buy the same products that were considerably
cheaper. It is an interesting scenario and I wonder how Marx would respond to it. Why
would they “continually spend what they get”, instead of being frugal?
We just talked about how capitalists need a command of labor and their main goal is to
produce commodities with more labor than what he paid for that is realized when the product
is sold. Labor power must reproduce its value as capital and created additional capital that is
not paid for. Wages tie into this. “Wages, by their very nature, always imply the performance
of a certain quantity of unpaid labor on the part of the laborer.” I worked in retail sales and
this is exactly the case. For instance, I was paid 8 dollars an hour, but had to sell 90-100
dollars an hour in order for that wage to remain stable. Obviously, I was not being paid
for all that I was selling. Accumulation of capital and the rate of wages is a relationship
between unpaid labor that is turned into capital and the extra paid labor that is needed in
creating extra capital.
Section 2 discusses what happens when the technical-composition also changes with the
accumulation of capital, in the previous example it remained the same. The use of machinery
and raw materials comes in to the picture and increase with the accumulation of capital. This
increase appears in the diminishing rate of the mass of labor in proportion to the mass of
means of production moved by it. So, as we see technology increasing we see labor power
decreasing. An increase in constant capital is at the expense of variable capital. It might,
however, only lessen the relative magnitude of variable capital, we could see a rise in the
absolute magnitude, even if it is small.
Hans: Next section says that this is an important discussion but does not explain well why this discussion is so
important.
An important part of this section is the differences between concentration and centralization.
Concentration is the pulling together or consolidating the means of production,
thus creating a greater demand over labor power. When talking about centralization we
need to involve two categories competition and credit. Competition creates larger industries
from smaller ones because larger ones usually can have lower prices and higher productivity.
Credit can pull the money of a society in to the hands of the capitalist, thus giving them more
power. Centralization is the creating of capitals into larger ones, destroying their independence.
We can see this in corporate take overs and combining like industries. “Concentration
360 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
is but another expression for reproduction on an enlarged scale.” Centralization is a change
in the distribution of capital. It supplements accumulation because it allows capitalists to expand
operations. With this concept of centralization there will be a decrease in the demand
for labor. For example, the merger of Novell with Word Perfect is a form of centralization
and how many layoffs were involved when that took place. All for the sake of creating more
money for the owners of the means of production.
Marx goes on to say in section 3 that since the demand for labor is determined by the
variable capital, the demand falls with the increase of the total capital. With the total growth
of capital, the variable capital increases, but in a diminishing proportion. Because the variable
capital increases in a diminishing proportion it follows that the demand for labor will
fall with the accumulation of capital. This creates a surplus population of wage workers. “It
forms a disposable industrial reserve army that belongs to capital...” “The whole form of the
movement of modern industry depends, therefore, upon the constant transformation of a part
of the laboring population into unemployed of half-employed hands.” The industrial reserve
army is a part of the population always looking for work or better work. Industry has power
over the army because of their command over machinery and manual labor and Marx states
that over population is a also a necessity for capitalists to maintain control. They can hire
when the market is high and lay off when the market drops. I am currently working for a job
that does just this. We work during peak hours of winter and are laid off during the summer.
On page 696 Marx brings up the point that the increase or decrease directly corresponds
with the increase of the decrease in the number of laborers employed, but the individual
laborer can yield more labor when the mass of labor falls. So, the variable capital can
increase. It is an “index of more labor.” It also the goal of the capitalist to squeeze more labor
out of a smaller amount of workers than hiring more workers. He goes on to state that the
capitalist takes it to a further point. He begins to hire less skilled workers and also younger,
so he can keep wages down. As I mentioned in a previous posting a company I worked for
hired mentally and physically disabled workers to pay the minimum they possibly could for
menial labor positions. It brings about greater exploitation.
Hans: The following you did not understand:
In order to keep wages down we see a check and Marx states it is a “beautiful mode”.
Wages rise due to the accumulation of capital, this in turn stimulates laborers to move in
and find jobs. The market becomes too full, the supply of labor outweighs the demand and
wages fall. Wages fall and the beginning of exploitation comes about with the wages.
The absolute general law of capitalist accumulation is tied to the industrial reserve army.
The more extensive the layers of the working class, and the industrial reserve army the
greater the poverty of a country. This brings us to the conclusion that the labor relies on the
means of production and what he makes from his own hands. The capitalist has total control
over the laborer. The accumulation of capital brings about the accumulation of wealth, which
brings about much misery for those who do not own the wealth. “In poor nations the people
are comfortable, in rich nations they are generally poor.”
First Message by Braydon is [27].
[969] Alex, Sprewell, and Allison: Section 1

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 361
Marx begins chapter 25 by explaining that he will be considering the influence of the
growth of capital on the fate of the working class, and that the most important factor in
doing so is the composition of capital, and the changes it undergoes during the process of
accumulation. From this point Marx goes
Hans: This is not an analysis. You are taking one sentence at a time and writing it down,
into a detailed discussion of the composition of capital. Composition of capital can be
looked at in two ways. First, as a value where it is determined by the proportion in which
it is divided into constant capital and variable capital. Constant capital is the value of the
means of production, whereas the variable capital is the value of the labour-power, or in
other words, the sum of the total wages. Marx refers to this as the “value-composition” or
the “organic-composition”. The second way in which the composition of capital is looked
at is as a material. All capital is divided into the means of production and the living labourpower.
Marx explains the determination of composition of capital as a material as being “by
the relation between the mass of the means of production employed on the ones hand, and
the mass of labour necessary for their employment on the other”. He uses the term “technical
composition” in regards to this form. The two forms are closely correlated, in that the value
composition is determined by its technical composition.
Marx then moves to
Hans: Can you give me the rationale behind this instead of a sequential then he does this, then he does that
approach?
a discussion of the accumulation of capital. He states that if the composition is constant,
the growth of capital and the growth of the additional labor fund, and the demand for labor,
will occur proportionally equal. The requirements of accumulation capital may exceed the
growth in labour-power or in the number of workers. Marx gives three reasons why this
may occur. First, capital produces a surplus-value every year and part of that is added to the
original capital. Second, this increment grows every year along with the addition of capital
already occurring. Finally, a change in the proportion in which the surplus value or surplus
product is divided into capital and revenue could suddenly extend the scale of accumulation.
If these conditions persist the demand for workers would eventually exceed the supply and
wages may rise. This would occur because more workers would be hired each year to meet
the requirements of accumulation. Along these lines, a consequence of accumulation is
the reproduction of the capital-relation on an expanded scale, producing more, or bigger,
capitalists and more wage-labourers. In other words, “accumulation of capital is therefore
multiplication of the proletariat”.
Hans: Why do you say now: “is”, after having argued “tends to exceed”?
Marx next moves on to the principle of the labouring poor and their dependence on their
own product. He states it thus. “the mechanism of the accumulation process itself not only
increases the amount of capital but also the mass of the ‘labouring poor’, i.e. the wagelabourers,
who turn their labour-power into a force for increasing the valorization of the
growing capital, and who are therby compelled to make their relation of dependence on
their own product, as personified in the capitalist, into an eternal relation”. With the growth
of capital this relation of dependence becomes more extensive but not more intensive.
Hans: This is not right. This was only one step in the argument. You should have read Section 2 as well.
362 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
A large part of the worker’s surplus product, which is constantly increasing, comes back
to him in the form of payment. Although this affords him more luxuries it by no means
eliminates his dependence, but only lessens it a bit.
Hans: The chains are not longer so tight but they have become heavier. This means the dependency has a different
character, but it is not necesarily greater.
The alternatives implied from a rise in the price of labour resulting from accumulation of
capital was the next topic Marx discussed.
Hans: You are missing all the connections between the points Marx made.
He saw two alternatives arising from this situation, the first being that the price of labour
would continue to rise because this rise does not interfere with the progress of accumulation.
In this case the increase in capital would make the exploitable labour-power insufficient.
The second situation would be accumulation slackening as a result of the rise in the price of
labour, because the stimulus of gain would be blunted. In the latter occurence the mechanism
of the capitalist production process would cure itself by causing the disproportion between
capital and exploitable labour-power to diminish as the price of labour would fall again to
a level that would correspond with capital’s requirement for self-valorization. The relative
reduction in the amount of capital would cause the exploitable labour-power, or its price, to
be in excess. Here the rate of accumulation is the independant variable and the rate of wages
is the dependant variable.
Finally, Marx talks about the law of capitalist production. He states that it can be reduced
to this: “the relation between capital, accumulation and the rate of wages is nothing other
thatn 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”. If the quantity
of unpaid labour increases so rapidly that its transformation into capital requires an extraordinary
amount of additional paid labour, wages would rise and the unpaid labour would
diminish in proportion. But when it diminishes to the point where the surplus labour is no
longer supplied in a normal quantity, less revenue is capitalized and accumulation slows
down, which slows the rising movement of wages. In summary, the nature of accumulation
is such that it eliminates the possibility of a diminution in the degree of exploitable labour
and a rise in the price of labour to the point where is could adversly affect the continual
reproduction of the capital-relation.
Hans: You are enumerating all the interesting points but not paying enough attention to the connections.
Section 2 Section 2 of Chapter 25 begins with the statement that “economists” say that the
rise in wages is due to “constant growth of accumulation” and correspondingly the “degree
of rapidity of that growth”, rather than from the extent of social wealth or the magnitude of
capital.
Hans: Were they right? Why does Marx even mention this here?
Up to this point Marx has considered only one phaseof this process (increase in capital
holding technical composition of capital constant), but there is more to this process. Given
the capitalist basis there is a point in accumulation where the “productivity of social labor”
becomes the most important lever of accumulation. Further, according to Adam Smith, the
same thin that causes wages to rise tends to increase the productive powers of labor and
accordingly causes a smaller quantity of labor to produce greater quantities of work. Marx
goes on to say that the means of production play a doule role,

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 363
Hans: don’t forget the main point, Marx’s statement that the organic composition increases with increasing technology.
the increase of some means are a consequence of the division of labor, the increase of
other means is a condition of the increasing productivity of labor. The consequence of the
division of labor is that more raw maerials are used (holding time constraints constant) for
example. And conversly the mass of machinery is a condition of increasin productivity of
labor. From this we can see that the growing extent of the means of production as compared
to the labor power incorporated in them is an expression of the growing productiviy of labor
Hans: Here you say it.
This shift in the technical composition of capital (growth in the mass of means of production)
is reflected in its value composition. In other words the increase of the constant
constituent of capital is at the expense of its variable constituent. An example of this is
given by Marx where one might have 50% capital in means of production and 50% capital
in labor-power prior to increasing the productivity of labor. After the increase there may
be 80% capital tied up in the means of production and only 20% capital invested in the
labor-power. This is known as the law of relative progressive growth of the constant part of
capital as compared to its variable part. The constant part of capital or the means of production
grows in a direct proportion to the progress of accumulation while the variable part of
capital or the payment made to the labor, has an inversly proportional relationship with the
progress of accumulation.
This “diminution” in the variable part of capital brings with it higher usage of raw materials.
An example that Marx gives is that of the spinning process where in the 18th century
the composition was 1/2 constant 1/2 variable, and now the composition is 7/8 constant 1/8
variable. Yet with this reduction in the variable component the useage of raw materials increased
many hundred times. This is due to the increase of the means of production or the
machinery etc... which causes an increase in the productivity of labor. Marx makes sure to
note that the lessenin of the value of the variable part of capital (due to accumulation ) is a
relative lessening. Although the value of the variable constituent is relatively lessened the
absolute magnitude may well be rising at the same time. Where the means of production are
privately owned there will tend to be an accumulation of capital into the hands of individual
producers. This is a presupposition to the specifically capitalist mode of production. And
all methods for the raising of social productiviy of labor, that are based on this are simultaneously
methods fo increase production of suprplus value or product, and is alternately a
“formative element of accumulation.” Again, through this process, he variable component of
capital becomes relatively smaller and smaller as compared to the constant part of capital..
Marx says that accumulation presents itself on one hand as increasing the concentration of
the means of production and of the command over labor, and on the other hand, as a repulsion
of many individual capitals from eachother. He states that capital “grows to a huge mass
in a single hand in one place, because it has been lost by many in other places.” Here we can
see there is a distinction between concentration and accumulation. Marx gives a few factual
indications of the laws of centralization of capitals. One such indication is that the battle
of competition is fought by the cheapening of commodities. Further it may be said that the
larger capitals may beat out the smaller capitals. Therefore smaller capitals will “crowd”
into “spheres” of production. We see that this process concludes in the ruin of many small
364 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
capitals, part going to larger capitals and part vanishing altogether. Another indication is the
development of the credit system. This system serves to draw the money resources needed
into the hands of an individual or associated capitalists by “invisible threads.” Credit soon
becomes a weapon in the battle of competition and is “transformed into an enormous social
mechanism for the centralization of capitals.”
While the progress of accumulation increases centralization, the capitalist expansion of
production creates on one hand the social need, and on the other hand the technical means
needed for the imense industrial undertakings. From this it follows that capital can grow into
powerful groupings in a single hand in one place. In a society , the limit of this centralization
would be reached when the “entire social capital was united in the hands of either a single
capitalist or a single capitalist company.”
Centralization serves to supplement the progress of accumulation by allowowing industrial
capitalists to extend the scale of their operations, no matter how this happens the economic
effect is the same. The starting point for comprehensive organizations ends up being
the increased scale industrial establishment. Marx states that in time the “old” capitals become
outdated and require “renewal.” The “old” capitals must be “reborn” in the form of
newer capitals in a perfected technical state where a smaller amount of labor will sufice in
the using o more machinery and raw materials. The absolute reduction in Demand for labor
that follows is so much the greater, that then the higher degree to which capitals undergoing
this process of renewal are “allready massed together by virtue of the movement towards
centralization.”
Marx ends this section with two statements. First, the additional capital formed in the
progress of accumulation attracts fewer and fewer workers proportion to it’s magnitude.
And second, old capital that is periodically reproduced repels more and more of the workers
formerly employed by that same capital.
The idea of this section is that through the progress of accumulation and centralization
of capital, through various levers such as competition and credit, the variable part of labor
decreases in relative value, while the constant part of labor increases proportional to the
progress of accumulation. And the worker ends up bein less and less needed in the process
of production.
Hans: You are paraphrasing selected sentences from this without going into the logic of it, apparently barely
understanding it.
Section 3 (datestring)Tue, 7 Mar 1995 09:53:02 -0700 (MST)(/datestring) The growth of
Capital and its self valorization comes at the expense of its variable component, which is
its demand for labor. As accumulation of capital takes place the total amount of necessary
labor increases, but it is increasing at a constantly diminishing proportion. Given that the
accelerated increase of the total capital is coupled by a much faster accelerated relative
dimunition of the capitals variable component, a surplus population of workers is produced.
This surplus population is what Marx refers to as the industrial reserve army. As stated in the
introduction of the book, “. . . capitalism spread not only by creating new jobs but also by
creating new unemployed”. This ‘new unemployed’ represent this reserve army of human
material that are absolutely imperative to the capitalist mode of production.

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 365
Pulled from this massive reserve, the working population plays an integral role in the
perpetuation of the capitalist mode of production. This working population, assisting the
capitalists in their accumulation of more and more capital plays puppet to the capitalist
system and does so in such a fashion that it is contributing to the ever increasing mass of
redundant workers in the reserve army of laborers. The progressive production of relative
surplus population is something that is constantly happening around us. It was not until I had
read this section that I realized that the circumstances where I work provide a an example of
this concept. This example follows:
I work in a world-wide phone center for American Express Travel Related Services. I
represent a disposable piece of ‘human material’, a cost element if you will, employed to assist
in the accumulation of capital associated with this mammoth institution. In recent years
my department has been steaped with additional responsibilities and greater time restrictions
in order for the company to increase productivity. (As Marx states, “It is the absolute interest
of every capitalist to extort a given quantity of labor out of a smaller rather than greater
number of workers”) It has been made very clear that if I do not wish to perform under these
increasingly difficult circumstances that there is someone ‘out there’ eagerley waiting to take
my place. Simultaneously, as our increased, imposed, efficiency has led to greater capital
accumulation at lower costs, the company has downsized, ‘setting free’ members into the
reserve army. These new members of the industrial reserve now become my competition,
forcing me to be even more productive if I wish to keep my job. I, therefore, as Marx states,
’produce both the accumulation of capital and the means by which “I’m made relatively
superfluous.”’
As capitalists, such as American Express, continue to accumulate more and more capital
they now have the option as stated, “to thrust itself (new capital) frantically into old
branches of production, whose market suddenly expand, or into newly formed branches.”
Each of these scenarios require that any given time there are available reserves of laborers
that can be exploited. With these additional disposable laborers, more and more capital is
accumulated and the cycle continues. Marx makes it very clear that without this available
industrial reserve army that the capitlist mode of production could not exist. He also states
that, “Modern Industry’s whole form of motion therefore depends on the constant transformation
of a part of the working population into unemployed or semi-unemployed hands”.
Marx attempts to illustrate how both political economists and economists alike recognize
the need for this reserve army but misunderstand and veil its true role in the perpetuation
of the capitalist mode. Certainly the cycle continues as these political economists remind
the workers that the social {2} interactions which they take part in serve to further the cause
of capitalism only in the interest of providing them with subsistence that they inherently
need. He also explains how the law of supply and demand are founded upon the principle of
relative surplus population.
I have a great respect for the insightful, powerful analysis that Marx has made with regards
to the capitalist mode of production. All too often, one participates in something not
really understanding the big picture and what role he/she is playing. Just this section has
caused a true paradigm shift for me as I have now learned some of the, “secret of why it
366 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
happens that the more I work, the more alien wealth I produce, and that the more the productivity
of labor increases, the more my very function as a means for the valorization of
capital becomes precarious” As stated in the introduction, “From the point of view of the
single capitalist firm, a worker cannot be seen as a human being endowed with elementary
rights, dignity, and needs to develop his personality. He is a cost element and this cost
must be constantly and exclusively measured in money terms, in order to be reduced to the
utmost.” A scary and viscious cycle.
Section 4 Marx begins section 4 by first stating that any worker who is partially employed
or wholly unemployed is part of the relative surplus population. He then makes three distinctions
of the form of the relative surplus population which are the floating, latent, and
stagnant form.
When workers are first repelled then called back again in higher numbers (in absolute
terms) while the number of workers is constantly reducing relative to the scale of production,
this is the surplus population existing in the floating form. The latent form of the surplus
population comes in the form of the aggriculture workers who boarder on migration to the
industrialized area, and the abandonment of their agricultural undertakings. The stagnant
or “disposable” form of the surplus population comes in the form of those who are actively
employed yet have extremely irregular employment i.e. shifting between jobs in very short
intervals. The stagnant workers are an inexhaustable source of disposable labor power. The
actual surplus population consists, therefore, of three stratums or categories. First, those
who are able to work. Second, orphans and pauper children. And third, the demoralized
the ragged and those unable to work. The greater the social wealth, functioning capital, and
the mass of the proletariat and its productiviy the greater is the industrial reserve army. The
same things that develop the power of capital also develop the labor power at the capital’s
disposal. Therefore the relative mass of the industrial reserve army increases with the “potential
energy of wealth.” The greater is the reserve army in proportion to the active labor
army the greater the mass of consolidated surplus population. Therefore the more extensive
the pauperized part of society and the reserve army then the greater is official pauperism.
The above is the absolute general law of capitalist accumulation. Given this Marx says that
we then see the foolishness of “economic” wisdom. That the workers should adapt their
numbers to the “valorization requirements of capital” seems rediculous. All this leads to the
“misery of constantly expanding strata of the active army of labor, and the dead weight of
pauperism.” Marx makes a large statement concerning the overall degradation and exploitation
of the worker under the capitalist system. He says that the condition or situation of
the worker as a proportion to accumulation of capital, must grow worse. A good way of
understanding this is a quote by Venetian Monk Ortes who said “the abundance of wealth
wih some people is allways equal to the lack o wealth with others.” Further there is a notion
that this misery is necessary to wealth. Marx sums up section 4 with a very descriptive quote
by by Destutt de Tracy “In poor nations the people are comfortable, in rich nations they are
generally poor.”
First Message by Alex is [26].
[970] Sms, Sammy, Ledzep, and Leo: Chapter 25 Final Paper
Executive Summary

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 367
Section I. A Growing Demand for Labor-Power Accompanines Accumulation If the
Composition of Capital Remains the Same In Chapter 25, Marx examines the welfare of
the growth of capital on the fate of the working class. Marx states that the most important
factor in this investigation is the composition of capital and the changes it undergoes in the
course of the process of accumulation. The composition of capital is twofold: 1) the means
of production and the value of labor power, or the sum total of wages. Labor-power is determined
by the relation between the mass of labor necessary for their employment on the
other. Marx refers to this as the technical composition of capital. The means of production
Marx calls the value-compositions of capital. The value composition of capital in so
far as it is determined by its technical composition and mirrors the changes in the value of
labor-power, the organic capital.
Many individual capitals invested in a particular branch of production have compositions
which differ from each other. The average of the total capital in the branch of production under
consideration. The average of all the average compositions in all branches of production
gives us the composition of the total social capital of a country.
Growth of capital implies growth in the invested labor-power, (the variable aspect). Since
the capital produces a surplus value annually, the requirements of accumulating capital may
exceed the growth in labor-power, or the number of workers ; the demand for workers may
outstrip the supply, and thus wages will rise. The mechanism of the accumulation process
not only increases the amount of capital but also the mass of the laboring poor-the wage
laborer.
Hans: It is important to see how it does that. Right now you seem to have said the opposite, that capital accumulation
is constrained by population growth.
Marx states that a rise in the price of labor as a consequence of the accumulation of
capital, only means that the length and weight of the golden chain around the wage laborer’s
neck, is loosened.
Hans: What?
Labor-power can be sold only to the extent that it preserves and maintains the means of
production as capital, reproduces its own value as capital, and provides a source of additional
capital in the form of unpaid labor. The conditions of the sale of labor-power include the necessity
of its constant re-sale, and the constantly extended reproduction of wealth as capital.
Wages, imply by their very nature, that the worker will always provide a certain quantity of
unpaid labor. Marx states that the rate of accumulation is the independent, not the dependent
variable; the rate of wages is the dependent, not the independent variable. Thus, when the
industrial cycle is in its phase of crisis, a general fall in the price of commoditites is shown
as an increase in the relative value of money, and in the phase of prosperity–a general rise in
the price of commodities is expressed as a fall in the relative value of money.
Hans: What does that have to do with it?
Marx states that the law of capitalist production which really lies at the basis of the
supposed “natural law of population” can be reduced simply to the relation between capital,
accumulation and the rate of wages, is nothing other than 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. Marx states that it is in no way a relation between
368 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
two magnitudes which are mutually independent, i.e. between the magnitude of the capital
and the number of the working population; it is rather, at bottom, only the relation between
unpaid labor supplied by the working class and accumulated by the capitalist class increases
so rapidly that its transformation into capital requires an extraordinary addition of paid labor.
Wages then rise and all other circumstances remaining equal, the unpaid labor diminishes
in proportion. As soon as this diminution touches the point at which the surplus labor that
nourishes capital is no longer supplied in normal quantity, a reaction sets in: a smaller part of
revenue is capitalized, accumulation slows down, and the rising movement of wages comes
up against an obstacle. 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.
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.
Marx starts this section by discussing the topic of rising wages and how they are attained,
that is, constant growth of accumulation and the degree of rapidity of that growth; higher
wages have nothing to do with the extent of social wealth or magnitude of capital. Given
the general basis of the capitalist system, a point will come when the capitalist will use
productivity of labor as the most powerful means for accumulation.
The result of the capitalist trying to increase labor productivity is two-fold, both consequence
and condition. The consequence is that more material and auxillary substance enter
into the labor process. The condition is an increase in machinery, equipment, buildings, etc.
In either case, condition or consequence, the growing extent of the means of production,
as compared with the labor-power incorporated into them, is an expression of the growing
productivity of labor. As a result, constant capital increases in size at the expense of variable
capital. 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. So,
value rises, but not in proportion to the increase in their mass.
Marx goes on to say that the progress of accumulation lessens the relative magnitude of
the variable capital, but this effect does not exclude the possibility of a rise in its absolute
magnitude. The next section of the text makes reference to previous chapters in Part IV to
which Marx mentions that the co-operation on a large scale can be realized only through
the increase of individual capitals, only in proportion as the social means of production and
subsistence are transformed into the private property of capitalists. Where the basis is the
production of commodities, large-scale production can occur only in a capitalist form. An
increase in the social productivity of labor based on this method, is at the same time a method
for the increased production of surplus-value, which is in its turn the formative element
of accumulation...accelerated accumulation. The variable component becomes smaller and
smaller as compared to the constant component of capital.
Now turning attention to the individual capital, Marx explains that each capital is a concentration
of means of production with its own charactieristics. Each capital has its own
growth/accumulation which comprises the growth of the social capital. The increasing concentration
of the social means of production in the hands of the individual capitalist is limited

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 369
by the degree of increases of social wealth. Also, the part of the social capital that resides in
each particular sphere of production is divided among many capitalists who are independent
and compete with one another. So, in one aspect, accumulation presents itself in the concentration
of production and command over labor; in another aspect the different capitals repel
on another. Although Marx does not address how this repulsion is countered by the attraction,
he suggests, as in major major business mergers of today, that smaller capitals would
be wiped out by the bigger ones if centralization of capitals never happened. Which he leads
into his next point which is also not explained, that of credit. He states that competition and
credit are the two most powerful levers of centralization.
Marx most adamantly declares that centralization is different from concentration. Concentration
is just reproduction on an extended scale, while centralization does not depend in
any way on a positive growth in the magnitude of social capital. Centralization may result
from a mere change in the distribution of already existing capitals. Furthermore, in any given
branch of industry, centralization would reach its extreme limit if all the individual capitals
invested there were fused into a single capital.
Section 3 The Progressive Production of a Relative Surplus Population or Industrial Reserve
Army
Accumulation of capital is vital to the capitalist mode of production, but as capital accumulation
grows, the composition of capital is changed. The rate at which the constant part,
that is the portion that can not create new capital, only transfer it, grows begins to accelerate.
This is accompanied by a relative slow down of the growth of the variable portion, that is,
the labor power portion which is capable of creating new capital. These two occurrences
lead to the conclusion that workers provide means whereby capital accumulation may occur,
and also cause the accelerating decline in labor demand growth. In other words, workers
help provide increases for the capitalist, but at the same time cause demand for their labor
power to diminish.
This peculiar law of population, a characteristic of capitalism, leads to the creation of a
surplus labor population. This population can grow by different means. First, as accumulation
occurs, the additional increase in machinery leads to slower growth of demand for
labor. As the population increases the market is unable to easily absorb the increased supply
of labor and unemployment results. the other method, which is far more violent, occurs
when the increased use of machinery replaces those that previously supplied labor power.
In this case unemployment grows faster than the population is adding new supply, and the
unemployment rate rises very quickly.
Unemployment is more than a characterisitic of capitalism, it is in fact a necessary part
of capitalism, without which growth can not occur. How can this be possible¿ As capital
accumulates, the productive capacity of the market increases. The markets may use their
increased expansionary powers to expand production. Production may be expanded in current
areas, or by creating new ones that become necessary due to advances in old modes.
However, this expansion does not happen automatically. This rapid expansion can not take
place without sufficient labor power that can be utilized without taking away from current
production. Population growth alone is much too slow to provide this necessary ingredient.
370 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
The resources must come from other sources, specifically, the unemployed masses. Thus the
market goes through stages where it experiences periods of slack, and unemployment goes
up. When demand picks up the market increases production by using the capacity of the
unemployed that accumulated in the slow period. Sooner or later the unemployed become
employed and the market slows down until the cycle repeats itself. We know this phenomenon
as the business cycle. Thus we can describe the business cycle not as the cause of
unemployment or accelerated growth, but as the result of the capitalist mode of production
Section 4. Different forms of Existence of the Relative Surplus Population. The General
Law of Capitalist Accumulation
Relative surplus population is when workers are only employed par time or are unemployed.
This may appear critical during the time of crisis and insignificant when business is
slack. There are three forms; the floating, latent and stagnant.
Floating surplus population is formed under the following scenario. A large number of
male workers are employed up to the time of maturity. However, they are let go when they
reach the ages beyond maturity, and very few are able to continue in the industry. A portion
emigrate. The female population grows faster than the male. Therefore, the natural increase
in workers is less than the accumulation of capital, while being greater than the same, which
contradicts capital. Capital demands more young workers and less older workers. Another
contradiction is not enough workers while there are many unemployed. This is due to the
division of labor.
The workers are so overworked that they are useless to the industry, only half way through
their lives. They are then considered part of the surplus population. As an example the
average age of death for an upper-middle-class man was 35 years old, while the laborer was
only 17 years old. So the rich live twice as long as the working class. This is why many
marry young.
Latent surplus population exists when capitalist production takes over agriculture, rural
workers population falls. The amount of capital employed rises. This causes constant movement.
Which causes agricultural labor wages to fall well below average. Finally stagnant
surplus population is what forms a portion of the labor army, with up and down employment.
Capital is offered a reserve of labor power, which is exploited by the capitalists. Its
population is derived from the older population taken out of industry, as well as, those who
have lost employment due to technology. It is the largest portion of surplus population.
The lowest form is pauperism. They are also split into three categories. Those people
that are able to work, orphans an pauper children, and the demoralized, ragged or people
unable to work, “...the hospital of the active labor-army and the dead weight of the industrial
reserve army.”
The absolute General Law of Capitalist Accumulation follows. The more social wealth
and functioning capital, growth equals higher absolute proletariat mass and productive labor,
the higher industrial reserve army. The development power of capital, in turn develops labor
power.

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 371
In conclusion, there are three quotes to close with. From the Venetian monk Ortes, “the
abundance of wealth with some people is always equal to the lack of wealth with others.”
From Sismendi, “...it is because one works that the other rests.” Finally Destutt de Tracy
stated, “in poor nations the people are comfortable, in rich nations they are generally poor.”
Summary
The law of capitalist production which lies at the basis of the supposed “natural law of
population,” can be reduced simply to the relation between capital, accumulation and the rate
of wages. It is in no way a relation between two magnitudes which are mutually independent,
but rather only the relation between the unpaid labor supplied by the working class and
accumulated by the capitalist class increasing so rapidly that its transformation into capital
requires an extraordinary addition of paid labor. Wages then rise and other circumstances
remaining equal, the unpaid labor diminishes in proportion. As soon as this diminution
touches the point at which the surplus labor that nourishes capital is no longer supplied in
normal quantity, a reaction sets in; a smaller part of revenue is capitalized, accumulation
slows down, and the rising movement of wages comes up against an obstacle. 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.
Higher wages have nothing to do with the extent of social wealth or magnitude of capital.
Given the general basis of the capitalist system, a point will come when the capitalist will
use productivity of labor as the most powerful means for accumulation. This progress of
accumulation lessens the relative magnitude of the variable capital, but this effect does not
exclude the possibility of a rise in its absolute magnitude. Section three deals with unemployment,
its creation in capitalism, the necessity of it in capitalismy, and how it explains
that the business cycle is a result of this capitalist mode of production. Accumulation causes
organic changes in the composition of capital which lead to accelerating growth of the constant
component, and decelerating growth of the variable component. The worker is seen
as the catalyst for accumulation and, at the same time, making himself temporarily unnecessary.
The masses of unemployed are vital to capitalism. Increased production relies on
currently unused labor that population growth is unable to provide. A pattern emerges as
unemployment grows as the market slows, and becomes the tool for invigorating it when demand
picks up. This pattern, which we call the business cycle, is the periodic path followed
by the capitalist mode of production.
Relative surplus population is when workers are only employed part time or unemployed.
There are three major forms; the floating, the latent and the stagnant. The fourth form is
pauperism, which is separated into three categories; people unable to work, orphans and
pauper children, and the demoralized, ragged or unable. Finally, the absolute general law
of capitalist accumulation is examined in part by a quote from Sismendi, “it is because one
works that the other rests.”
Hans: This was not an executive summary.
Next Message by Sms is [1017].
[971] Tsunami: Chapter 25: The General Law of Capitalist Accumulation In Section
1, Chapter 25 of Volume I of Capital, Marx proposes that though the composition of capital
remains the same, the demand for labor-power will grow with accumulation. Here Marx
372 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
offers us an analysis of the impact of capital growth on the fate of the working class. He
argues that this analysis must necessarily take into account the composition of capital, and
the metamorphosis of capital through the process of accumulation.
The composition of capital must be understood both as a value and as a material. As a
“value-composition,” it is determined by a number of things: its relation to constant capital,
the value of the means of production and variable capital, or by the value of labor-power,
which is the sum total of wages. As the “technological composition of capital,” the composition
of capital is determined by the relation of means of production employed to the mass of
necessary labor for their employment. Marx calls this relation between value-composition
and technical composition of capital the organic composition; where value-composition is
determined by its technical composition and reflects the changes technical composition undergoes.
In his analysis, Marx generalizes the particular branches of production until he arrives
at the average of all average compositions in all branches of production. This gives us the
composition of the total social capital of a country. Marx proposes that for our final analysis,
we need only be concerned with this alone.
The growth of capital reflects the growth in labor-power investment, where a part of
the surplus-value was transformed into additional capital. This additional capital feeds an
additional labor fund of variable capital. Marx argues that ceteris paribus, as the composition
of capital remains constant, the demand for labor and the fund of workers’ subsistence
both increase in the same proportion as the capital, and at the same rate. As capital produces
surplus-value incrementally every year, the scale of accumulation may be extended
by changes in surplus-value allocation to capital and revenue. Accumulation reproduces the
capital-relation only with a larger number of players on both poles. The reproduction of
labor-power becomes a factor in the reproduction of capital, and therefore the accumulation
of capital is the multiplication of the proletariat. In his first footnote, Marx clarifies just
what he means by “proletariat:” the man who produces and valorizes “capital”, and is thrown
onto the street as soon as he becomes superfluous to the need for valorization possessed by
“Monsieur Capital.”
Marx next examines what classical economists have argued accumulation to be. Marx
finds fault with Mandeville’s arguments, suggesting he lacked an understanding of the mechanism
of the accumulation process as increasing the amount of capital but also the mass
of the laboring poor. The laboring poor use their labor-power to increase the valorization
of growing capital, and are therefore sucked into an eternal relation of dependence upon
their own product. Those who have escaped such a fate are basically parasites, living in
leisure because they possess command of labor. The laboring poor themselves have no
hope out. The extension of the sphere of capital’s exploitation and domination through the
re-transformation of the workers’ own surplus product does nothing to abolish their exploitation
or their situation of dependence.
Even a rise in the price of labor (as a result of the accumulation of capital which needs
more workers to work the transformed capital) merely feeds the proletariat’s consumption
funds (which, by the way, feeds production in turn). Labor-power is bought and sold because

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 373
it reproduces its own value as capital, and includes additional capital in unpaid labor (because
the production of commodities contain more labor than is included in the price paid).
The workers are suckered out of pay for a certain quantity of their labor, for specified wages,
workers provide a definite quantity of unpaid labor.
The rise in the price of labor does not interfere with the process of accumulation. Capital
continues to extend its spheres inspite of reductions in the amount of unpaid labor, the
increase in capital made the exploitable labor-power insufficient. However accumulation,
on the other hand, slows down and the rate of accumulation slackens as a result of the
disproportion between capital and exploitable labor-power. This relative reduction in the
amount of capital causes the price of exploitable labor-power to be in excess. Here Marx
argues that the wage rate is not independently causing changes in the rate of accumulation,
contradistinctly, the rate of wage is dependent upon the rate of accumulation. Given this
relation between wage rate and rate of accumulation, Marx maintains that the relation between
capital, accumulation and the rate of wages mirrors the relation between the unpaid
labor which has been transformed into capital and the additional paid labor necessary to
work the additional capital. The fluctuation of wages depends upon how fast the quantity of
unpaid labor is supplied by workers and accumulated by capitalists. If it rises rapidly, then
its transformation into capital will necessitate additional paid labor, and wages will rise as
a result and the proportion of unpaid labor will diminish. Wages are limited by smaller and
smaller portions of revenue being capitalized, whereby accumulation slows down. The law
of capitalist accumulation creates a situation where accumulation, by its very nature, refuses
every diminution in the degree of labor-exploited, and every rise in the labor-price, which
could undermine the continual reproduction of capital-relations. The worker, argues Marx,
exists to valorize, instead of the other way around, whereby wealth satisfies the workerUs
need for development; for all intents and purposes, the worker is forever enslaved.
In Section 2, Marx turns his attention to other phases of the process of accumulation,
concentrating for the most part on the development of the productivity of social labor as the
catalyst to accumulation. The social productivity of labor is revealed in the extent of the
means of production that one worker turns into products during a given time and with the
same degree of labor-power intensity. The more productive the worker’s labor is, the more
the mass of means of production. These means of production, however, can be either the
consequence of the increasing productivity of labor, or a condition of it. In both, nonetheless,
the growing extent of means of production is a manifestation of the growing productivity of
labor. This increase in productivity of labor results from the slackening of the mass of labor
proportional to the mass of means of production moved by it.
The increase of the constant variable of capital at the expense of its variable factor alters
the value-composition and reflects the change in the technical composition of capital. The
progressive growth of the constant constituent of capital compared to the variable one is evidenced
by the comparative analysis of the prices of commodities during different economic
times or cross-nationally. Marx makes this distinction between price and capital: the relative
magnitude of the constant capital portion expressed in the price is directly proportional to
the progress of accumulation, whereas the relative magnitude of the variable capital portion
is inversely proportional to the progress of accumulation.
374 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
The change in the composition of the value of capital can indicate the change in the
material factors only approximately. The change in material factors is explained by the
increased productivity of labor, where the mass of the means of production used up by labor
increases, but their value does not increase in proportion to the increase in mass. However,
emphasizes Marx, that the progress of accumulation lessens the relative magnitude of the
variable part of capital does not rule out the possibility of a rise in absolute magnitude of the
variable part.
In a system of production of commodities, cooperation on a large scale can be possible
only through the increase in the number of individual capitals, and only as a proportion to
the social means of production and subsistence that are transformed into capitalistsU private
property. Therefore, large-scale production must necessarily occur in a capitalist form, the
necessary pre-condition for the capitalist mode of production being the accumulation of capital
in the hand of individual producers. This primitive accumulation is the historical basis of
specifically capitalist production. Marx here is not concerned with how it itself originates,
but takes this as a starting-point from whence all methods for increasing the social productivity
of labor are simultaneously the methods for the increased production of surplus-value.
It is the rising surplus-value production that forms the basis of accumulation, and not only
does it produce capital by capital, its incessant re-conversion of surplus-value into capital
is indicated by the increasing magnitude of capital entering into the production process. At
the other end of the long chain of reactions ignited by the historical primitive accumulation,
the increasing magnitude of capital forms the basis of an extended scale of production. Not
only does it supply the methods for raising labor-productivity that accompany extended production,
it also allows for an accelerated production of surplus-value. This endless cycle
feeds upon itself, beginning with a pre-condition amount of accumulation of capital which
sparks the specifically capitalist mode of production, which sets off a snowball effect as the
specifically capitalist mode of production in turn causes an accelerated accumulation of capital.
The accumulation of capital and the capitalist mode of production provide the change in
technical composition of capital whereby the variable constituent diminishes in proportion
to the constant component.
Accumulation feeds the means for new accumulation. A malignant tumor, accumulation
increases the concentration of wealth-that-functions-as-capital into the hands of individual
capitalists, spawning new and independent capitals, limited only by the degree of increase of
social wealth. Accumulation is like a coin: on one side, it increases the concentration of the
means of production and exerts total control over labor, on the other, accumulation serves to
repel many individual capitals from one another. The attraction of capitals concentrates capitals
already formed, destroys their individual independences, expropriates from capitalist
to capitalist, and transforms “perfect competition” capitals into “oligarchy” capitals. Unlike
the accumulation of capital, the centralization of capital is not limited by the absolute
growth of social wealth, and grows lopsided, amassed by one capitalist on one hand and lost
by many individuals capitalists on the other. Marx does not develop the laws of this centralization
of capitals, or the attraction of capital by capital in Chapter 25. He offers instead
a brief overview: the larger capitalists, who presumably operate in large-scale industries,
usurp the capitals from smaller capitalists by cheapening commodities. A new force grows

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 375
from the development of capitalist production, the credit system, which acts first as henchman
for accumulation by supplying small capitalists with money resources, but then acts as a
mechanism for the centralization of capitals. With the development of capitalist production
and accumulation come the development of competition and credit, both powerful factors
of centralization. The centralization of capital would reach a limit when the entirety of the
social capital was unified under a single capitalist or a single capitalist firm.
Centralization takes off where accumulation is limited by facilitating industrial capitalists
to expand the scale of their operations. Increased scale of operations allows for a more encompassing
organization of the collective labor of many workers and for the “socialization”
of isolated processes of production. Furthermore, centralization accomplishes in shorter
time what it would take much longer for accumulation to do; here Marx uses infrastructure
as an example. He goes on to point out that while centralization accelerates and intensifies
the effects of accumulation, it also commensurately extends and hastens changes in the technical
composition of capital which raise its constant proportion at the expense of its variable
portion, thus diminishing the relative demand for labor (p. 780).
The diminishing demand for labor occurs on one hand when the additional capital formed
by accumulation attracts fewer and fewer workers proportional to its magnitude, and on the
other when old capital metamorphosed with a new composition refuses more and more of the
workers who previously worked it. Section 3 offers an analysis of the progressive production
of a relative surplus population (industrial reserve army) as a result of the accumulation
and centralization of capital. The accumulation of capital reaches zenith with a progressive
change in its composition, as technical composition outweighs the variable component of
capital. The specifically capitalist mode of production, the development of the productivity
of labor, and the consequential change in the organic composition of capital develop much
faster than simple accumulation because of centralization, and because old capital is reinvented
with new technical composition. Marx proposes that the progress of accumulation is
the proportion of changes in the organic composition of capital (constant to variable capital
changes). As demand for labor is determined by the variable portion of capital, it declines
as growth of the total capital progresses. While the variable portion rises with growth of
total capital, the demand of labor increases at a constantly diminishing rate. The acceleration
of the accumulation of total capital, necessary to incorporate additional workers, as
well as to re-absorb workers whose functions have become obsolete as old capital changes,
actually forces new changes in the composition of capital, which further diminishes the capitalUs
variable element. Capitalist accumulation produces a surplus population, a relatively
redundant working population, (p. 782).
Paradoxically, the greater attraction of workers by capital is punctuated by the greater
rejection of workers by the same. Surplus population produces the accumulation of capital,
and the means by which it renders itself superfluous, at an ever increasing rate (p. 783). So
surplus working population is not only a necessary bi-product of accumulation or capitalist
production, it is also a “disposable industrial reserve army,” a pre-condition for the very
existence of specifically capitalist mode of production. By speeding up technical change,
and incorporating it into old capital as well as new capital, masses of surplus product may
be transformed rapidly into additional means of production. Surplus population ensures that
376 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
workers already entangled in other markets will not have to be pulled out in order to fill the
voids in new and expanding markets. Marx then illustrates how this kind of relation was
impossible in the early stages of capitalist production because the composition of capital
changed only gradually. In the same way that expansion grew by “fits and starts of the scale
of production,” so will its contraction be signaled. The contraction is the result of expansion,
but expansion requires an increase in the number of workers independent of absolute population
growth. Today, modern industry is dependent upon the constant transformation of
part of the working population into the unemployed or semi-employed. Once set in motion,
the production of a relative surplus population has become essential to modern industry. The
natural increase of population, however, cannot supply capitalist production with the disposable
labor-power it requires. The capitalist can further exploit individual labor-power, and
thus “free workers” with the same outlay of variable capital. The capitalist can then purchase
greater masses of labor-power with the same amount of capital, by replacing skilled
with less skilled workers, male by female, and adults by children.
As accumulation progresses, the larger variable capital frees more labor without enlisting
more workers, it also frees more labor with the same amount of labor-power, and frees more
unskilled labor-power by displacing skilled labor-power. The production of surplus population
outgrows technical transformation, the diminution of the variable portion of capital;
capital increases its supply of labor faster than its demand for that labor-power. The result
is conflict from within the reserve army, between the over-worked employed and the “idle”
unemployed. This conflict forces the employed workers to submit to the demands of capital,
so capitalists win big–those who will not over-work themselves will be replace quickly by
others all too willing to work those long hours.
Alternations of the industrial cycle are determined by the proportion of the working class
that is divided into an employed army and a reserve army. According to classical economists,
wages rise due to the accumulation of capital. Higher wages signal the need for labor and
the population responds by multiplying rapidly, until labor is overabundant and the supply of
labor outstrips capital. Marx argues that this model is “an economic fiction” in that it would
take too long to birth and rear satisfactory workers.
The greatest crime of economic apologists is the pretense that capital is freed for the
benefit of the worker. It is much the other way around–workers are freed for the benefit of
capitalist production. Moreover, the mechanism of capitalist production ensures that a rise in
the general demand for labor will not follow the absolute increase of capital. The capitalist
mode of production increases the demand for labor while simultaneously increasing the
supply of workers. Those already employed are pressured by the unemployed to provide
more labor, making the supply of labor somewhat independent of the supply of workers. This
relationship being heralded as a natural law of supply and demand by classical economists,
dissension against workersU exploitation is seen as treasonous or counterproductive; if, on
the contrary, the creation of an industrial reserve army is impeded, the capitalist mode of
production is all too willing to tailor this Rsacred lawS to suit its own keen interests.
In Section 4, Marx expands on the forms of relative surplus population, arriving at the
general law of capitalist accumulation. Relative surplus population exists in many different
forms; Marx specifies three it always possesses: floating, latent, and stagnant forms.

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 377
In floating form the number of employed increases in a constantly decreasing proportion
to the scale of production. Latent surplus population is composed of a sort of “hidden”
reserve army, hidden because they are already employed, in the agricultural sector, for example,
where wages are kept deliberately low, so that even low industrial wages start to look
good in comparison.
Stagnant population forms part of the active labor army that has a highly irregular employment,
and offers a virtually endless supply of disposable labor-power. Drawing from
large-scale industry and agriculture workers who have become redundant, it also forms a
self-perpetuating element of the working class whereby the number of births, deaths and the
absolute size of families is inversely proportional to the level of wages.
The rest of relative surplus population is composed of the most wretched and poor: firstly,
those who can work; secondly, orphans and pauper children; and finally, the demoralized,
the ravaged, and those unable to work. Far from being the burden of capitalist production,
responsibility for these is shouldered by the working class and petty bourgeoisie.
Here Marx arrives at the absolute general low of capitalist accumulation: the industrial
reserve army depends on the extent of social wealth, the functioning capital and its growth,
the absolute mass of the proletariat and its labor, the more extensive the poor sections of
the working class and the reserve army, the greater the poverty. Marx hints at modifications
to this law, but continues arguing that an analysis of such does not concern us at this point.
Instead, Marx emphasizes the foolishness of economic dogma that maintains that workers
must adapt their numbers to the requirements of capital. In a system where the means of
production employ the worker, the higher the productivity of workers’ labor, the greater
the pressure of workers on the means of employment, inevitably the sale of workers’ laborpower
for the self-valorization of capital becomes even more uncertain.
Consequently, raising the social productivity of labor proves costly to the individual
worker: it distorts him from his humanity, degrades him to the level of machinery-appendage,
destroys his labor by transforming it into a punishment, alienates him from intellectual participation
in the labor process, transforms life-time into work-time, drags his family into the
industrial reserve army. The accumulation of capital causes his position only to deteriorate;
the law of relative surplus population at equilibrium with the accumulation of capital forces
the accumulation of misery upon the working class.
Unfortunately for the working poor, many of the world’s most influential minds have
been hard put to sympathize with their plight; the antagonism of capitalist production is
often viewed as a universal natural law of social wealth. Misery and martyrdom have been
glorified as necessary conditions of wealth. Perhaps Marx’s greatest contribution, aside his
profound analysis of the nature of capitalism as a mode of production, is his genuine concern
for the health and well-being of those who inadvertently feed the machine that signals their
demise: the worker, and Marx’s resounding call to arms to those oppressed to defy the
system and seek a better and more fulfilling life.
First Message by Tsunami is [24].
378 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
[972] Stxian: Final Paper, Stxian and Nena (group members) Through out the history
of mankind and economic developments, people often are confused and poundered in various
directions into which course should civilization and society finally adopt and how far
will it go to achieve its’ limitations? Various thinkers, economists, phoilosopher and politicans
have always argued and attaced on each on various views. Among them, Karl Marx
is one of the most important economist, thinker, phoilosoher and ideaologist that not only
represented the most forward idea and radical vision of human history, and his carefullness
and uniqueness of observing the human economic, civilization and social developments, but
also he openly charllenged the so called mainshream economics (classical economics) to a
point that either they will have to rethink and retool their theory and practice or they could
ignore Marx’s idea and theory, they choose latter, and labeled Marx as a radical socialist
and revolutionary statesperson. They outlawed Marx’s work and his ideas. But, one question
remains, no matter what, why does so many people’s lives are been affected by Marx’s
idea and his vision, if his idea is purely insane, then, why do so many country follow his
vision and his way of how a society should be (although, those countries who tried to follow
Marx’s idea didn’t quite understand Marx’s vision as well). Neverthless, Marx shaped our
world and will influence us forever, we turn our direction to one of his most famous book
that affect people so much , “DAS KAPITAL”, it has virtually been translated into every
existing language on earth. We have to admit, it is a very hard book for us to understand and
seek its true meanings. But, once, you began getting the picture in your mind, you will start
to appreciate how much contribution Marx bought to this society, by giving us a whole lot
of more of choices and goals for us to discuss and pursue in future, and how far ahead he is
ahead of his time and even today, his idea and theories are ahead of our time too.
One of the most important and vital chapters is in chapter 25, It is labeled “The General
Law of Capitalist Accumulation”, it’s an in depth discussion of how in the capitalist society,
what driving force and social mechanism is making the capital accumulation (acquiring
more of capital, wealth with the existing resources) possible and how is the relationship
between working force (namely labor) and their employer (capitalist) and also worker’s
relationship with regard to the capital itself as well as the social structure of how society is
treating different classes of people in real senses. One of the unique and fancinating thing
we noted about Marx’s work is that even though his book “DAS KAPITAL” was finished
around 1860s’, but his vision and idea can still applied it into today’s society. The more you
read and understand his work, the more you will understand better how the whole Capitalist
system works and realize you are exactly what Marx had described as a working member
of the capitalist society. In this final paper, we choose to discuss Section 1 of Chapter 25,
because we think it is the fundation and groundwork of Marx’s other theories regarding
to capital accumlation and surplus labor in relation to capitalistic production. Generally
speaking, this section is the groundwork for the further discussion of growth of capital on
various different kind fo labouring classes.
Through out section 1, there are a lot of things Marx have discussed have a big impact
and I can understand and relate to in the present day. For instance, Marx wrote “If we
suppose that, all other circumstances remaining the same, the compostiton of capital also remains
constant then the demand for labour and the subsistence-fund of the labourers clearly
increase in the same proportion as the capital, and the more rapidly, the more rapidly the

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 379
capital increases. Since the capital produces yearly a surplus-value, of which one part is
yearly added to the original capital; since this increment itself grows yearly along with the
augumentation of the capital already functioning; since lastly, under special stimulus to enrichment,
such as the opening of new markets, or of new spheres for the outlay of capital
in consequence of newly developed social wants, etc.,” We find Marx’s point indeed very
true and thoughful. If we consider the industrial revolution of England, US, France, Germany
and other western capitalist countries, we can find that their process of capital growth
with proportion to the growth of labour and leads to a rise in worker’s wage. We can also
find this similar situation present in the NIC (Newly Industrialized Countries, Taiwan, Singapore,
Hong Kong, South Korea, Chile, Mexico etc...), even in the world’s most dynamic
growing economy, China, this process is ever present, for that Chinese labour market in
from 1989-1993 experienced one of the shortage, this is exactly what Marx have described
as been increase of capital exceeds the increas of labour power in the form of of number
of labourers. and, now, average Chinese worker’s wages have increased 15%-20% in real
terms since the economic reforms began 17 years ago. However, it may look good on the
surface, it is in fact, very hard change on average Chinese family, even though people have
more money, but they have to counter inflation (this is truely one of the most strangest and
sickest form of rip off from people by the capitalist), they also have to face the stress and
demand of capitalist of increasing production and productivity. The job itself is nolonger
secure, unlike the old socialist planned economy, where no matter how much work or how
less work you done, you still get paid the same (Chinese communist government’s vision of
Marx’s equal distribution of income became countless various political movements one after
another and forced violent class struggle which killed the normal proceedings of economic,
political and social lives of every Chinese). People in China today have to fight the growing
social unrest that Mao said was non-existence (or wiped out) through his “cultural revolution”.
Anyway, I think Marx’s point is well made no matter which country is going through
mass transformation of production and capital change.
Marx also wrote “As simple reproduction constantly reproduces the capital-relation itself,
i.e., the relation of capitalists on the one hand, and wage-workers on the other, so reproduction
on a progressive scale, i.e., accumulation, reproduces the capital relation on a progressive
scale, more cpiatslists or larger capitalists at this pole, more wage-workers at that. The
reproduction of a mass of labour-power, which must incessantly re-incorporate itself with
capital for that capital’s self-expansion; which cannot get free from capital, and whose enslavement
to capital is only concealed by the variety of individual capitalists to whom it sells
itself, this reproduction of labour-power forms, in fact, an essential of the reproduction of
capital itslef. Accumulation of capital is, therefore, increase of the proletariat.” We think this
is a very important point Marx has pointed out to us. Marx pin pointed very clearly the true
relationship between labour-power and capital lies nothing more than a master and a slave
in old dynastic socities. Labor has no control of itself and the purpose of working, because
in the capitalistic society, labour-power through increasing production becomes part of the
capital and can no longer separate them apart. The reproduction of labour-power becomes
merely one of the sources of capital reproduction. Which leads to a very famous and very
important conclusion in the capital reproduction system, the accumulation of capital is the
increase of proletariat, another word to put it more modern and more revealing way is to say
380 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
that capitalist’s wealth and capital is build on how much more can they squeeze out of every
each individual workers. This is certainly true in today, for example, one of our group member
worked in a local office supplies retail store, the owner or “capitalist” pays everybody
unreasonably low wages and the nature of the job requires every worker to work very hard
and sacrifce a lot in order to get things done. While store managers and owners are celebrating
the successful year of record sales, individual employees see nothing has changed. This
is a very clear case of how wealth of others (riches, people who have capital and doesn’t
necessary need to work) has build on the sarcrfice and work of other ordinary individual employees.
The present day solgan “over worked, under paid” is a clear evidence in testimony
to Marx’s point of view about the relationship bewteen labour-power and capital reproduction.
This leads to another critical point of the chapter when Marx quoted Mandeville pharse
“but it is the interest of all reich nations, that the greatest part of the poor should almost
never be idle, and yet continually spend what they get. . . . Those that get their living by
their daily labour . . . have nothing to stir them up to be serviceble but their wants which
it is prudence to relieve, but folly to cure. The only thing then that can render the labouring
man industrious, is a moderate quantity of money, for as too litttle will, according as his
temper is, either dispirit or make him desperate, so too much will make him insolent and
lazy...” Marx added his comments “. . . the mechanism of the process of accumulation itself
increases, along with the capital, the mass of ‘labouring poor,’ i.e., the wage-labourers, who
turn their labour-power into an increasing power of self-expansion of lthe growing capital,
and even by doing so must eternize their dependent relation on their own product, as personified
in the capitalists.” Marx’s observation is unique and so true not only at his time, but
also the time beyond his reach. Even in the US today, the world’s most fully developed capitalist
economy, each individual citizen are living the lives and daily process of what Marx
has just described. People still don’t realize what Marx has pointed out about their own
labour-power been transformed into a dependent relationship forever on their own product
and the capitalist through their every needs and wants on individual things and makes their
own-product expansion into the capitalist’s capital expansion. We think all the people have
to realize that, without labour-power (labor), big capitalist can no longer be rich, the very
vital and essential capital reproduction process will stop. Right now, capitalist is doing the
same as the capitalist in Marx’s time, they are forcing people into accept their position and
social order by making every body into a similar situation (wage, education, need and want),
it seems that society has no other choices other than accept the fate. But, Marx gave us
the first quest and solution to solving this societial sickness by reconize and see the true
face of what capitalist is doing right now. What Marx concluded in section 1 is also very
important, “The law of capitalist production, that is at the bottom of the pretended ‘natural
law of population,’ reduces itself simply to this: The correlation between accumulation
of capital and rate of wages is nothing else than the correlation between the unpaid labour
tranformed into capital, and the additional paid labour necessary for the setting in motion
of this additional capital. . . The rise of wages there fore is confined within limits that not
only leave intact the foundations of the capitalistic system, but also secure its reproduction
on a progressive scale. The law of capitalistic accumulation, metamorphosed by economists
into a pretended law of nature, in reality merely states that the very nature of accumulation
excludes every diminution in the degree of exploitation of labour, and every rise in the price
of labour, which could seriously imperil the continual reproduction, on an ever enlarging

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 381
scale, of the capitalistic relation. . . so in capitalistic production, he is governed by the products
of his own hand.” This is a very thought out statement made by Marx. We think it laid
foundation to everything else thereafter. Man is governed by the products of his own hand is
a conclusion and also a further relation ship between labour-power and capital reproduction
system. Capitalistic system are mainly existence to benefit the few riches and people who
owns capitals, for ordinary citizen, they are merely one of the tool to make those people
more rich and live better. In conclusion, we think section 1 of chapter 25 in Marx’s “DAS
KAPITAL” is the most important section on the book, because for the first time, it explains
the relationship between labour-power, laborer, products, capital and capital reproduction
system. It is very sad and very interesting to note that in a capitalist society, individuals are
controlled by greedy, need, wants and our own products in real terms, that most of us truely
don’t have enough strength and self-awareness to see the system in real sides, Marx saved
us a lot of time by pointing us to the direction where man should consider these ongoing
mechanisms and leave us an unique and hard question of where we want to be in the future?
The so called the “Socialist Countries” have tried (although most of what they did is against
Marx’s true social mechanism principles), the modern and developed capitalist countries are
also sinking deeper and deeper into the puzzle in which Mankind have created for itself.
First Message by Stxian is [51].
[973] Marinda: As a result of my study of Capital in econ 508 this quarter, I have found in
Ch.25 the most compelling insight into the workings of capitalism, as summarized by Marx’
phrase 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 at the
opposite pole,... (section 4, paragraph 11) or, in my own paraphrase: The accumulation of
riches and the accumulation of poverty are both products of the mechanisms of capitalism.
It is the nature of capitalism itself that continually produces both more wealth and more
poverty. This paper will present the logical arguments or explanations used by Marx to support
his conclusion that wealth and poverty always go together in capitalism. He does not
simply say that the rich are exploiting the poor and stop there. He shows how the mechanisms
internal to capitalism result in the simultaneous growth of capital and poverty. It is
from the Marxian understanding of accumulation, wages, productivity and unemployment
and their mutual effects upon each other that the compelling logic of the “absolute general
law of capitalist accumulation” is created (sec.4 para.8). It is the nature of these mechanisms
and their effects that result in a self-promoting, ever expanding cycle, and the result is what
Marx calls the “general law of accumulation.” ACCUMULATION Accumulation is the simple
growth of capital, as surplus labor produces surplus value, part of which the capitalist
adds to the pre-existing capital (re-invests). An example is the growth of a single business.
This is in contrast to reproduction of capital, in which enough surplus value is produced to
support the owner, but the business does not grow. Continued accumulation is also called
extension or expansion and it results in the concentration of capital. On the other hand, the
centralization of capital is the result of combining many smaller capitals into fewer larger
ones, while the total capital remains the same. This is a result of competition between capitals.
Larger capitals squeeze out the smaller ones. Centralization also can occur over-night
by means of joint-stock companies. And while in this way centralization intensifies and
accelerates the effects of accumulation, it simultaneously extends and speeds up those revolutions
in the technical composition of capital which raise its constant portion at the expense
382 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
of its variable portion, thus diminishing the relative demand for labor. (sec.2 para.13) Each
aspect of accumulation tends to increase the rate of accumulation (more on composition of
capital and demand for labor below.) Accumulation alone will result in an increase in the
demand for labor. If we assume that, while all other circumstances remain the same, the
composition also remains constant ... then the demand for labour, and the fund for the subsistence
of the workers, both clearly increase in the same proportion as the capital, and with
the same rapidity. (sec.1 para.4) Then the number of workers would be expected to increase
as the total capital increases. As this process continues, the demand for labor exceeds the
supply, a shortage of labor appears and wages rise. WAGES Therefore, higher wages, better
working conditions, more jobs and lower unemployment can result from the accumulation
of capital, but these conditions are rare and temporary. High rates of accumulation result in
higher demand for labor higher wages. However, as Marx explains, “The law of capitalist
accumulation ... in fact expresses the situation that the very nature of accumulation” puts
a stop to this. (sec.1 para.9) The rise in wages stops because it reduces surplus value (also
known as exploitation, or unpaid labor) which slows the rate of accumulation. Since the rise
in wages depends on a high rate of accumulation, but causes in turn a reduction in the rate
of accumulation, the benefits to workers which could result from the growth of capital are
subject to a self-limiting cycle. A reduction in the rate of accumulation causes wages to go
down. When wages drop, as they do during the periodic crises of capitalism which form the
business cycle, that alone causes an increase in surplus-value. Higher surplus-value means
higher rates of accumulation. The faster the accumulation, the greater the demand for labor,
and wages rise again. Aside from that, the demand for labor is (and therefore wages
are) actually continually reduced by increased productivity. PRODUCTIVITY Marx defines
productivity in terms of both quantity of means of production and quantity of products, per
worker-hour.
Hans: This is not Marx’s definition, this is how productivity is expressed.
... [T]he level of the social productivity of labor is expressed in the relative extent of the
means of production that one worker, during a given time, with the same degree of intensity
of labour-power, turns into products. (sec.2 para.3)
The conditions required for an increase in productivity include the use of a larger amount
of machinery per person, the scale of production and division of labor, and the developing
technology of production.
The consequence of increased productivity is the use of a greater amount of raw material.
The increased machinery and increased materials used per worker-hour are both included in
the category of constant capital. But whether condition or consequence, the growing extent
of the means of production, as compared with the labour-power incorporated into them, is
an expression of the growing productivity of labour ...
This change in the technical composition of capital ... is reflected in its value-composition
by the increase of the constant constituent of capital at the expense of its variable constituent.
(sec.2 para.3,4)
The constant constituent of capital consists of the value of the means of production (capital
in the form of non-labor costs), and the variable constituent is the value of labor (capital

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 383
in the form of labor-costs.) (sec.1 para.2) Even though the number of workers may increase
over time and the mass of means of production increases, when one also accounts
for changes in the value of the means of production and changes in the value of labor and
includes huge productivity increases, it is the ratio of constant costs / variable costs (cc/vc,
also called value-composition of capital) that consistently increases.
Productivity is related to other aspects of capitalism in several ways. Productivity and
the composition of capital do not merely keep pace with the progress of accumulation ...
They develop at a much quicker rate, because simple accumulation ... is accompanied by the
centralization of its individual elements ... (sec.3 para.2)
Increases in productivity in turn accelerate the accumulation of capital, because a worker’s
wages are paid for with a smaller number of hours out of the working day, leaving more hours
unpaid, creating more surplus-value. So, ... all methods for raising the social productivity of
labour that grow up on this basis [capitalist production] are at the same time methods for the
increased production of surplus-value or surplus product, which is in its turn the formative
element of accumulation. They are, therefore, also methods for the production of capital by
capital, or methods for its accelerated accumulation, ...This is in turn the basis of an extended
scale of production, of the methods for raising the productivity of labour that accompany it,
and of an accelerated production of surplus-value. (sec.2 para.7)
This mutual positive-feedback forms a self-promoting cycle and thus an ever-expanding
spiral of accumulation, which continually increases the ratio of cc/vc. This in turn generates
the surplus population or industrial reserve army.
UNEMPLOYMENT
The relative surplus population is the proportion of the potentially productive population
of workers which is unemployed or semi-employed, and therefore very poor or homeless
(and with no social programs or government-supplied “safety net” to speak of at the time
that Marx wrote). 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... (sec.3 para.2)
Every mechanism of capitalism discussed above therefore acts to continually increase the
proportion of the population which is “surplus” compared to the demand for labor. Centralization
accelerates accumulation, which increases productivity which reduces the demand
for labor, which increases the surplus population.
This accelerated relative diminution of the variable component [of capital], which accompanies
the accelerated increase of the total capital and moves more rapidly than this increase,
takes the inverse form, at the other pole, of an apparently absolute increase in the working
population, an increase which always moves more rapidly than that of the variable capital
or the means of employment. But in fact it is capitalist accumulation itself that constantly
produces, and produces indeed in direct relation with its own energy and extent, a relatively
redundant working population, i.e. a population which is superfluous to capital’s average
requirements for its own valorization, and is therefore a surplus population. (sec.3 para.2)
384 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
In turn, the surplus population is “the lever of capitalist accumulation” (se.3, para.4).
Like a lever, it multiplies the forces of accumulation, increasing the rate of accumulation
(and therefore the rate of production of additional surplus population) in several ways.
The surplus population competes for jobs, forcing down wages. The competition for jobs
also results in longer working days and worse working conditions for those that do have jobs.
The condemnation of one part of the working class to enforced idleness by the over-work
of the other part , and vice versa, becomes a 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 progress of social accumulation. (sec.3 para.11)
As an industrial reserve army, the surplus population is ready to be called up when a
market suddenly expands, new markets open up, or new products become profitable. It is
also recruited by the growth phase of the industrial cycle. Therefore, the growth of capital
and the rate of surplus-value are not much impeded by a shortage of labor.
The other side of the availability of surplus labor whenever called upon by capital is the
fact that workers are thrown back into the surplus population as soon as their employment
is no longer contributing to the growth of capital, for any reason. The increased surplus
population then results in lower wages and higher rates of accumulation.
Taking them as a whole, 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. (sec.3 para.12)
Independently, the ever-rising productivity “ ‘sets free’ a part of the working class” (sec.3
para.5). Increases in productivity act as the “means for the ‘saving’ of labour” (sec.3 para.11,
internal quotation marks are all Marx’). Marx uses the phrases of the mainstream economics
in a consciously ironic way. This kind of freedom is freedom from having a job, and jobs =
money = life (I credit the form of this equation to George McMeen.) Therefore, the ‘saving
of labor’ is really the condemnation of many workers to abject poverty, who would otherwise
be employed.
Capital acts on both sides at once. If its accumulation on the one hand increases the
demand for labour, it increases on the other the supply of workers by ‘setting them free’...
CONCLUSION
All of these mechanisms of capitalism and their operation are used by Marx to explain
how and why the accumulation of capital is connected with the accumulation of surplus
population and poverty. Therefore, it is due to the nature of ACCUMULATION, that it
reduces surplus population and increases wage if nothing else changes. But it is also in the
nature of accumulation that it changes things such as productivity.
When WAGES do increase, it is due to the nature of wages’ effect on surplus value that
accumulation slows. Reduced accumulation then results in lower wages.
It is the nature of PRODUCTIVITY that it increases the composition of capital, surplus
value and thereby accumulation, while at the same time producing surplus population.

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 385
The very properties of SURPLUS POPULATION result in the lowering of wages, increased
surplus-value and therefore greater accumulation.
Finally, higher rates of accumulation of capital, combined with increased productivity,
generate a greater surplus population, which in turn increases accumulation. Wealth and
poverty go hand in hand in capitalism. The greater the social wealth, the functioning capital,
the extent and energy of its growth, and therefore also the greater the absolute mass of the
proletariat and the productivity of its labour, the greater is the industrial reserve army. (sec.4
para.8)
... [I]n proportion as capital accumulates, the situation of the worker, be his payment
high or low, must grow worse. ... (datestring)A(/datestring) n accumulation of misery [is] a
necessary condition, corresponding to the accumulation of wealth. (sec.4 para.11)
In Das Capital chapter 25, Marx has convinced me that it is the “antagonistic character of
capitalist accumulation” (sec.4 para.12) i.e., in the nature of capitalism itself, that it produces
both wealth and poverty. “[I]n the same relations [of production] in which wealth is produced,
poverty is produced also” (sec.4 footnote 23). The nature of capitalism is expressed
in the nature of accumulation, wages, productivity and surplus population, and expressed
by their effects upon each other. Thus, Marx demonstrates that it is due to the nature of
capitalism that we see and, by implication, can only expect to see, an ever-expanding spiral
of increasing wealth and poverty, together and inseparable in capitalist society.
Hans: Excellent.
First Message by Marinda is [234].
[974] Marlin: In part one of chapter 25 Marx’s basic argument is basically the laborer
becomes a slave to his product. Through the process of capital accumulation, the laborer
gets tied to the growing amount of capital. He gets tied to the actual accumulation of capital.
The only way to further himself is to be more productive. As productivity increases with the
growth of capital, the wages he is able to earn rise. But he must at least maintain production.
He is a slave to the product he produces. Without production he and his family have nothing.
No food, new clothes, etc. aside from any items of pleasure.
Hans: Marx’s argument is that by becoming more productive, the laborer exactly undermines his livelihood.
I agree with what Marx is saying. I don’t think many people in our society really analyze
the reasons behind our actions. We are slaves to the products we buy.
Hans: marx says we are slaves to the products we produce.
Marx makes a comment with respect to the only concern of a consumer is to get more
labor-value out of a product than he put into getting the wage unit himself.
Hans: This is not the consumer, this is the producer.
In section two, Marx opens with a discussion on value composition and technical composition
of capital. In this he points out that the division of labor often brings out more
productivity, as far as mass, in the same amount of time with the same number of labor
hours. He then gets to the main point of the section. He begins writing about concentration.
Growth of social capital is possible by the growth of many small capital stocks. This
accumulation and growth of individual capital stocks is a direct cause of concentration. Individual
capitals form in such a great number that intense competition results and the groups
the prevail grow with a increasingly larger mass of means of production, and the ones that
386 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
lose are eaten up by the former. This can be described as the self destruction and relocation
of individual capital. This is best put as a quote from Marx on page 777, “It is concentration
of capitals already formed, destruction of their individual independence, expropriation of
capitalist by capitalist, transformation of many small into few large capitals.” The result: a
few large stockpiles of capitals rather that a widespread of the same. This is centralization.
The two most important functions of centralization are competition and credit. Competition
is vital to the centralization process. It is also a natural part of a capitalist society. Bottom
line: if a corporation can’t effectively keep it’s cost of production competitive, it will be
beaten out of the marketplace by those who can. If this happens the losing corporation is
either eaten up by the “bigger fish”, or dissolved into nothing. The idea of credit runs along
the same lines. The less efficient your production methods are, and the smaller the scale of
your business, the more difficult it is for you to obtain credit. If you are a small, unefficient
firm, who will loan you money or capital. After all, in a capitalist society emotions play
not role. These ideas of centralization, competition, and credit tie into the industrial reserve
army. In an effort for the largest and most efficient corporations to remain that way they must
have a flexible labor force. It is not efficient to, in order to reduce production from a slowed
demand, employ a constant number of workers. Therefore when a firm slows production it
can just cast off these unneeded workers and trim up costs. These displaced workers can
always be picked back up when demand rises again. This is the basic argument of the industrial
reserve army. Their employment depends on the scale of production at any given
time. When these workers are completely or sometimes partially unemployed, they exist in
three forms. These are the floating work force, the latent work force, and the stagnant work
force. The floating work force occurs mainly in the industrial manufacturing sector. Marx’s
examples include- factories, workshops, iron works, and mines- and he has characterized it
as a “rapid replacement of one generation of workers by another.” Employers hire worker
of a childs age up to maturity but not beyond. “Capital demands more youthful workers,
fewer adults.” Many of these displaced workers emigrate, usually following capital which
has done the same. Latent workers are those workers displaced by the entry of capitalism
into the agricultural sector. These workers are forced to seek work in the urban areas. This
forces the wage down and reduces their chances for long term or full time employment and
implies a constant surplus of workers. Finally the stagnant work force. As its name implies,
this group has very limited long term or consistent employment. These people are the epitome
of paupers. The are easily exploitable and therefore work the hardest and longest with
the least pay. Entering this class I was, to say the least, skeptical. Now, I still would not
say I am a firm believer in Marxism. However, I must say, Marx, in his own time, had some
views of capitalism which apply amazingly well to capitalism as we know it today.
First Message by Marlin is [57].
[977] Deadhead: As I read through chapter 25 I took notes on what I thought was important
to understanding Marx’s theory on the accumulation of capital. First of all the ultimate
goal of all capitalist is to increase the amount of capital he controls by the continuous valorization
of the capital which he already owns. There are many factors in the accumulation
of capital. Marx first discussed the need for labor. To continue to gain capital the profits that
a capitalist earns are reinvested to purchase more capital and as the amount of extra capital
earned increase so does the amount reinvested. As capital increases so does the need for
labor to put this new cap[ital to work, for without labor capital is useless. The valorization

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 387
process depends on laborers and the more laborers that are put to work the more capitalist
can earn. In the capitalist system, capitalists and laborers both play an important role. Capitalists
oversee production, make production decisions, and employ laborers. The laborers
wants for food, clothing, shelter, etc. create a desire for them to work.
Hans: I would rather say, the capitalist monopolizes the means of production, which the worker needs to work,
and thus takes advantage of the worker.
Large increase in capital due to accumulation may cause shortages of labor. if shortages
do occur wages tend to increase. As the number of laborers and their wages increase so
does their consumption of the goods being produced which helps speed up the valorization
process.
Hans: Interestingly, Marx does not say a word about this aspect of it in this chapter.
Fluctuations in prices of goods occur as well as fluctuations in wages of laborers.
Hans: Marx talks here of fluctuations of output.
In times of crisis there is less money in circulation, therefore the relative value of money
increases and prices drop. On the other hand in times of prosperity, there is more money in
circulation therefoe the relative value of money decreases and prices go up.
Hans: Marx used this exactly as an example of a false theory!
A capitalist will only continue to produce if more labor is being done than is paid for.
Hans: Marx would say the worker is the one who is doing the producing.
This difference is known as
surplus labor and is what creates profits for the capitalist. The law of capitalist production
refers to the relation between this unpaid labor transformed into capital and the amount of
labor needed to put the additional capital, created by valorization, to work.
Capitalists are alway trying to increase productivity. The level of social productivity of
labor is the relative extent of the means of production that workers, working under simiar
conditions and in a given time period, turn into products. The increased productivity of labor
turns more raw materials into finished products in a shorter period of time. As productivity
increases there is often a shift in the % of the variable constituent of capital(labor power) to
the % of the constant sonstituent of capital(mass means of production) as fewer workers use
more machinery or capital to produce more goods in the same amount of time because of
their increased efficiency. The % of price that represents the constant variable of production
increases proportionately with the process of accumulation.
Hans: Yes, you are jotting down facts without being concerned about how they hang together. Do you want to
memorize all this?
Smaller amounts of capital tend to concentrate under the control of certain individuals
or companies. Centralization can bring together many capitals by hostile annexation or
friendly mergers. This centralization alows capitalists to take advantages of larger scales of
production. This again speeds up accumulation and further increase the gap between the
constant and variable consituents of capital. These new concentrations can grow and my
even divide to form new capitals. concentrations of capital may compete with one another
for larger shares of the market. Competition cause large capitals to lower their prices in
hopes of putting other smaller capitals out of business or force them to join forces with the
large capital.
388 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
As capital continues to increase, the variable constituent of capital increases absolutely
but diminishes relatively in a constantly diminishing proportion. The population of workers
needed to put capital to use is and inecludeable aspect of capitalist production. The system
of capitalist production maintains a surplus of worker which form a kind of reserve industrial
army, that in times of expansion can be assembled quickly in order to increase production.
Visa-Versa, in times of contraction, this surplus workforce can be enlarged as capitalists cut
back productiona and lay off workers. These fluctuations in the number of workers emloyed
is caused by accumulation of capital. As capital accumulates, wages rise and more workers
enter the jon market until it is oversupplied, then wages begin to fall.
Hans: What? This is not the mechanism at all!
Then when the time comes aroung agian, wages agian rise and the cycle is started over.
Workers are consatntly falling out of the workforce and being replaced. Large scale industries
prefer younger laborers and the older wokers are either put into management positions
or become part of the surplus workforce. As workers are being laid off, capitalists exploit
employed workers competition with one another to keep their current jobs by getting them
to work harder and longer for less pay in order to keep their jobs and not be one of those laid
off. The relative mass of this industrial reserve army increase with the potential energy of
wealth. Capitalism devlops a system in which a constantly increasing means of production
may be put to work by progessively smaller amount of labor, because of the increase in the
productivity of social labor.
With the accumulation of capital and the increased productivity of social labor, capitalists
continually move closer to reaching their goal of producing the maximum amount
of products by using the most constant capital(means of production) and the least variable
capital(Labor power), while earning the highest profits possible.
Hans: You did take some liberties with the text.
First Message by Deadhead is [238].
[980] Stalin: In chapter 25 Marx explains his theory on the composition of capital. Marx
describes the relationship between value composition and the technical composition of capital.
The “definitions” Marx gives are the “mass of the means of production employed” and
the “mass of labour necessary for their employment”. I think the main thesis of The General
Law of Capitalist Accumulation is to consider the above in every aspect of production and
add it all up to find the “composition of the total social capital of a country”; as Marx states.
In Marx’ discussion on this in part two, he points out that the division of labor brings out
more productivity, as far as mass, in the same ampunt of time with the same amount of labor
hours. Marx also describes concentration in this section, which is the accumulation and
growth of individual capital stocks and is a directcause of concentration. The intense competition
which individual capitals create gets bigger and bigger with an increasingly larger
mass of means of production and the individual capitals that lose are absorbed by the former.
This basically describes the feeding frenzy which occurs in capitalism and fierce competition.
Big time competitors eat smaller competitors for breakfast due to their larger amount of
accumulated capital and lower costs of production. Centralization of capital is made possible
by through competition and credit. Competition is where the capitalists screw the worker
becasue they get the surplus value, essential to staying in business, from the worker. Part
one describes the accumulation of capital and how that affects the worker. Marx describes

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 389
the workers surplus product and how it is always increasing and that it turns into additional
capital; which comes back to them in the form of payment. Marx further says that this payment
is where the worker derives his bond to capitalism and is what ties him into his own
exploitation and basically makes him a slave to production.
Hans: This is a very modern view.
The only way the worker can improve his lot in society is to increase his productivity.
Hans: Marx does not say that. On the contrary, higher technology sets workers free.
In this sense I agree with Marx most workers in a capitalist society are so blind to what
their actually doing and don’t really care as long as the pay checks keep rolling in. These
workers never even question the fact that perhaps there is something better they could be
doing with their efforts where they could reap the surplus value of their labor.
Hans: Hu hu hu they should become capitalists?
Marx also states that credit plays a major role in the accumulation of capital because the
bigger your production means, the more money you can borrow to increase your means of
production; which in turn increases your surplus value. In part three Marx talks about the
Industrial Reserve Amry which was described as maintaining an efficient labor force that can
be hired and fired according to the demand of production. The Industrial Reserve Army can
be broken up into thre groups: the floating workforce, the latent worforce, and the stagnant
workforce.
The floating workforce is the cyclical group of industrial workers who labor for generations
in mines, factories, or workshops for many generations. The young workers are
in demand and as soon as they reach maturity are dismissed and then younger workers are
picked up. This reminds me of a movie I recently watched where a Polish family had worked
at a steel mill in Pennesylvania for generations and one of the sons had a dream to go to college.
The father told the son that he was crazy and born a workingman and no one in their
family could do such a thing. The son rebelled and went to college; his family, instead of being
proud, ostracized him and showed contempt because they said he was wasting his prime
years and would not be able to find a good job at the steel mill when college was over. It
is this ignorant mentality that is instilled in the floating workforce which keeps people tied
to their meaningless jobs. For generations these people are told that they can’t do anything
else and they are suckered into it. “Capital demands more youthful workers”.
The latent worker is described as having “one foot already in the swamp of pauperism”
because they work in the countryside of agriculture. The demand agricultural workers fall,
but the capitalist accumulates more capital.
The stagnant population has an irregular employment status and offers the capitalist quick
and easy disposable labor. A prime example of this in our society are Temorary agencies that
employ people at jobs for only a few days and then moves them on. These people are getting
screwed because they bounce from job to job and never accumulate any specific skills which
would better their lot.
Hans: You are applying the readings to real life problems. This is good. Unfortunately you are often not getting
what Marx meant.
Next Message by Stalin is [1029].
390 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
[1016] Eagle: The purpose of this essay is to briefly go over what is in the first four
sections of chapter 25 in ‘Capital’. Since I am not qualified to refute nor add to Marx’s
writings, I will simply convey how I interpret what Marx is writing and the point he is trying
to get across.
There are four parts to this essay and they follow in sequence of the four sections in the
book, starting, of course, at section 1.
I. THE GROWING DEMAND FOR LABOR-POWER ACCOMPANIES ACCUMULA-
TION IF THE COMPOSITION OF CAPITAL REMAINS THE SAME.
To begin with, I think it is important to show that Marx writes about two different types
of capital, constant and variable. He describes constant capital as “the value of the means
of production”. As I understand it, this would mean the machinery used to produce commodities.
He then goes on to say variable capital is “the value of labor-power”. I believe he
means this to be the workers themselves and they are variable capital because their number
is not always constant due to wage changes and the fluctuations in the market.
Hans: No, that is not the reason. But I am glad you are saying that it was not defined.
He also talks about the organic composition of capital which is constant capital divided
by variable capital, and is not always constant.
Now that we understand the difference between the two types of capital, we can go on
to what this section is saying about them. What Marx really seems to be saying is that if
you spend all of you money on constant capital, you can’t afford to have variable capital.
However, the two go hand in hand. There must be labor to operate the machinery, without
it, the machinery isn’t used and the commodities don’t get produced.
As a company grows, it accumulates a lot of capital, but to keep commodity production
growing steadily, the company must accumulate constant and variable capital at an even
rate. This isn’t difficult because most nations have a lot of poor workers who need jobs. The
companies can lock the wages in to assure profits and the workers will still accept the jobs.
However, these workers must create surplus value in order for the company to make a profit.
If this doesn’t happen, the company will reduce labor to the point that they will have surplus
value.
Hans: You are saying they have lots of poor workers who need jobs. Marx is saying, how come this supply of
workers has not been exhausted?
II. A RELATIVE DIMINUTION OF THE VARIABLE PART OF CAPITAL OCCURS
IN THE COURSE OF THE FURTHER PROGRESS OF ACCUMULATION AND OF
THECONCENTRATION ACCOMPANYING IT.
The basic idea in this section is to discuss how technology changes the needs of accumulation
of capital. Marx is saying, in essence that higher accumulation is caused by technical
innovation. As technology progresses, as better means of production are discovered,
companies will spend more on this technology to accumulate this type of capital. Higher
technology also gives a company a larger organic compostion.

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 391
The technological innovations also cause a change in the need for labor. Higher technology
yields a need for less labor. Production can be increased and uses less labor to do it.
With fewer workers, the wages of the remaining workers may tend to rise,
Hans: What?
making the workers more productive and causing quantity produced to become quality.
The larger companies will benefit the most from technical innovation. These companies
can afford to accumulate the higher technology before the smaller companies can. What this
means is that larger companies will continue to grow at a faster rate and smaller companies
will tend to get pushed out.
III. THE PROGRESSIVE PRODUCTION OF A RELATIVE SURPLUS POPULATION
OR INDUSTRIAL RESERVE ARMY.
In this section, Marx begins with a paragraph that states, in essence, that the progressive
accumulation of constant capital lowers the need of variable capital. This is basically what
this section is about.
Although this type of change is good for a company, it is tough on the labor force. The
speed of concentration and mechanizations caused by technical innovation causes less of
a need for laborers. Wages begin to decline and workers are “set free”, meaning laid off.
Organic composition will increase because constant capital will increase, but variable capital
will decrease because of this.
This setting free of workers begins the growth of what Marx calls “the industrial reserve
army”. The workers laid off by these industrialized companies are lumped together and
are waiting for a job to become available at these companies. They are already trained
for industrial labor but they weren’t needed in their positions any longer because of the
accumulation of constant capital. Marx says that this “surplus population” is necessary for
modern industry because variable capital fluctuates. Sometimes more is needed, sometimes
less, but it needs to be there.
IV. dIFFERNT FORMS OF EXISTENCE OF THE RELATIVE SURPLUS POPULA-
TION. THE GENERAL LAW OF CAPITALIST ACCUMULATION.
The second sentence of this is almost a summary of it. Marx is saying, in essence, that
once you are part of the relative surplus population, you are always part of it. A member of
this population will tend to be only partially employed, or wholly employed, but in and out
of jobs for the rest of their working life. Marx also says that the relative surplus population
comes in three forms: the floating, the latent, and the stagnant.
The floating surplus population is described as a person who is under employed as he gets
older. Their skills are meant for better jobs than the ones they accept.
The latent surplus population are the people who want to work but have given up looking
for jobs. They become discouraged because of their inability to find a job and have decided
to quit looking. They live at a low subsistence level because they can’t afford a higher one.
Hans: This is not quite it.
392 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
The stagnant surplus population is characterized by a lot of time working and very low
wages for compensation. Marx describes this as “life below the normal average working
class” and goes on to say that it “would sound absurd to savages”. He believes this to be
caused by the greed of the capitalist society.
Marx also talks about pauperism, calling it the “lowest sediment of the realative surplus
population”. He also says there are three categories of pauperism: those able to work, orphans
and pauper children, and the demoralized, the ragged, and those unable to work. Many
times, members of pauperism become criminals to survive. Crime becomes a secondary effect
of unemployment. These “paupers” will begin to steal in order to survive.
The four main point of this essay, as it corresponds to chapter 25, are a discussion of
how accumulation of capital and labor-power to increase production. The second point
was to discuss how technological innovation helps companies increase productivity while
decreasing labor. The third point was to show how the demand for labor becomes limited
because of the accumulation of capital. And the fourth point was to discuss the relative
surplus population and what becomes of the laid off workers of industry. Although this
paper is a much shorter version of Marx’s writing, I believe I have conveyed the main points
of his writings. He does make somme good arguments for his point of view and I hope I
have understood them correctly in this paper.
Hans: Some yes, some no.
First Message by Eagle is [370].
[1033] Oregon: In section 1 of chapter in Marx’s Capital, Marx quotes Bernard Mandeville
and agrees with his interpretation of capitalism: the capitalistic society exists due
to the numerous poor which must be given only what is necessary to survive, never what
is considered luxurious. Also required is that these poor are “ignorant” because knowledge
increases desires and the poor can not have desires because this would make them aware
of their situation. This definition is not correct in the capitalists society in the U.S. today.
Workers are paid more than substantial wages because of a)unions organize workers into
powerful negotiators(something not thought of by Marx), and b) capitalists are willing to
pay more for a job well done. Another thing about today’s society that disagrees with Mandeville’s
description of the worker is that they are not “ignorant”. In fact, it is because they
are not ignorant that capitalsim strives and is successful. Their wishes provide motivation
for them to work harder and longer so that their dreams can be realized. The more they
work, the more products are available for consumption and the more money they have in
their pockets to consume and pursue their dreams. Society as a whole benefits and yes, so
does the business owner. This point is the subject of much of Marx’s criticism and will now
be examined closer. Marx often paints a nasty picture of the business owner (which will now
be referred to as capitalists). Numerous illustration have depicted the capitalists as one who
sits under the shade sipping champaign and eating caviar while everyone around him breaks
their backs for a drop of water and any crumbs that may fall from the table. Obviously this
is not the case (as mentioned above) and a closer look at the capitalist will shed a different
light ont their role. The capitalists has a great responsibility to himself and those who work
for him the continued success of his business. The business does not only benefit him, but
also benefits those who work for him and the society as a whole. By providing the means
of production, production can take place and an increase in production equals an increase in

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 393
the need for more and more workers that will be compensated fairly for their labor and the
standard of living will increase for all involved so whatever profits that are realized by the
capitalist are well deserved. These profits are not all for the capitalists to enjoy. The government
levies a heavy tax on these profits and uses the money to fund programs that benefit
those who are in need of assistance. The government also provides incentives to capitalists
for their donations to needy organizations. So the capitalist contributes to society more than
is portrayed by Marx. In section 2 of chapter 25, Marx describes how the nature of capital
tends to create a phenomenon where some companies grow larger and larger while others
grow smaller and smaller until they are either absorbed by the larger ones or shattered by
them and the their pieces are absorbed latter on. Marx’s main point being that fewer and
fewer laborers are needed as the concentration of capitals becomes ever increasing. This
point is a valid one, but something to consider is that as some business’s grow larger and
larger so does their need to distribute their products. This need requires that labor be used in
a way that con not be directly related to the means of production, but can be related to the
successful and continued operation of the business. The capitalist must also have a demand
for his product, so it is not as if he could just produce an infinite amount of products and
continue to grow expotentially. He has to realize the economic climate and operate within
this constraint. It seems as if Marx assumes that everything that a worker produces is automatically
consumed as soon as it comes out of the workplace. Also, Marx does not account
for government intervention in the form of restrictions on monopolies and requirements of
fair business practices so that is is more difficult for such concentration to occur than Marx,
makes it seem. In section 3 of Capital, Marx describes the accumulation of capital and its
affect on the employement rate. His theory is basically that when the country is experiencing
an economic boom the unemployement rate diminishes and the capitalists are able to
produce more of their product. As the workplace is flooded by the mass emigration of new
workers the accumulation of capital decreases. The economic boom brings on the increase
of wages the hiring of new workers that relates to smaller profits for the capitalists. Once
the capitalists see that the cost of production is cutting into its profits to greatly they will
begin to scale down its operation. Here Marx sees that the laborers that will lose their jobs
are the high paid. AKA the highests costs of production. But what he fails to see is the common
value that the worker gives to the capitalists. A quote from capital is “ the capitalists
progressively replaces skilled laborers by less skilled, mnature labour-power by immature,
male by female, that of adults by that of young persons or children.” Marx’s analysis of his
modern day country may have held some truth then, however it does relate to the modern day
U.S. Many new requirements for workers keep the unskilled and immature laborer out of the
workplace. College degrees, special training and experience in the workplace could outway
the replacement of an unskilled worker. The idea of the reserve army of labor holds true in
the fact that it exists, and in the case that we experience an economic boom and the demand
of less skilled workers on a short run basis also holds true. But the replacement of the current
laborers by new and less qualified workers does not exists. As we stated before a capitalists
will only invest into something that is going to be well, by trained laborers that know what
they are doing. The current workers will keep there jobs unless they are outpreformed by a
equally qualified canidate. Not by someone who is not qualified. In my conclusion I believe
that if Marx retitled the reserve army of labor the the qualified canidates for work, then this
theory would be more correct in the reasons that I have allready mentioned. What I seem
394 1995WI Econ 5080 U of Utah
to discover in Marx is that his theories are correct in the sense of his era. Just look at his
dipction of the capitalists. However now in the modern U.S. his theory needs to be more
modified to fit the era.
Hans: I like this frank exposition of the capitalist viewpoint.
First Message by Oregon is [18].
[1034] Slrrjk: Chapter 25 seems to be a further extension of earlier arguments that Marx
proposed in other chapters, but it gives a more detailed account of the process of the accumulation
of capital. Marx begins the chapter with a detailed description of the components
of capital. He breaks them down by constant and variable capital. After he has given us a
better understanding of what makes up capital he goes on to discuss variable capital and how
it is connected to the accumulationo of capital. Throughout the rest of the chapter he discusses
centralization and its contribution to the accelerated accumulation of capital and he
also discusses the destruction of the proletariat due to capitalism. He goes into great detail
in describing the effects of capitalism on the working class and gives numerous mathematical
examples of exactly how the destruction and exploitation occurs in attemt to support the
never ending hunger of capitalism.
The above is a short overview of what the chapter consists of, but what struck me the
most about this chapter is Marx’s in-depth coverage of just how extreme the exploitation of
the working class is and how capitalism unavoidably must spread its exploitation to include
more and more unskilled workers if it is to survive. He gives examples how workers are
never compensated for the value that they put into commodities no matter how high their
wages may rise, and also includes the fact that even though wages may fluctuate they most
definitely have limits due to the way in which capitalism must profit. For example, if wages
increase due to a shortage in the supply of workers, the ratio of compensation for the value
that the laborers create goes up but once the ratio is too high and the capitalists are not
creating enough surplus value to insure the accumulation of new capital, wages will go
down. In addition to the above example, no matter how much wages go up workers are not
compensated for the amount of value that they create for the capitalists.
Because workers are denied the ownership of the means of production (constant capital)
they cannont create any surplus value for themselves they must sell their labor as a way to
survive and continue to live from paycheck to paycheck. This brings up a rather interesting
point in my mind with reference to the current United States debate over welfare. There are
only a certain number of jobs, and a certain amount of unemployment is necessary for our
system to operate, yet the public is being convinced that people who receive public assistance
are lazy and simply do not have any motivation to work. (Granted, the people convincing
the public that the above is in fact the case are politicians and politicians are not known for
their reason but more for their sensationalism of issues.) If the public read chapter 25 of our
text I think that they would have a little more understanding and compassion for the citizens
of our country that are on welfare. Welfare exists as a buffer to cushion the fall of the people
that do not have jobs because their either are none or the ones that do exist would never be
able to support one person much less a family.
It is interesting how politicians create a division between people to try and hide the real
situation from the public. If the true issues of the capitalistic system that we live in were

U of Utah Econ 5080 1995WI 395
exposed I think the masses of people would demand serious change. Equality is the real
issue, but the public is blinded by rhetoric that divides one group against the next. A good
example would be the divisive nature of the focus on the welfare queens once again. It is
made into a racial issue, which has always been a hot button, instead of an economical issue.
And at the same time tax cuts are being given to families with incomes of over $200,000!
Where is the justice? Another interesting point that Marx makes that relates to the above
examples is that in order for capitalism to work the masses of workers must be unskilled
and uneducated. I think that describes a good part of the United States. Citizens are not
eductated about our system and how much inequality there is. If they were I don’t think they
would stand for it.
Chapter 25 has given me, as well as the rest of the text, a better understanding of how
capitalism operates, the conditions that are neceassary for it to survive and prosper, and as a
result what kind of a social environment it creates. It is not the pretty picture that is painted
of the capitalistic systems throughout the world. It is a much darker picture than can be seen
by the naked eye.
First Message by Slrrjk is [722].
Compiled by Hans G. Ehrbar 2013-07-07 04:21:34.