ECONOMICS 5080 QUESTIONS AND ... - University of Utah

ECONOMICS 5080 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 

INSTALLMENT 2 

ECONOMICS DEPARTMENT, UNIVERSITY OF UTAH FALL SEMESTER 2012 

Question 348 Should the relationship between individual and society be compared to the 

relationship between an individual bird and a flock of birds, or to the relationship between 

the bumble bee and the flowering plant? Give Pros and Cons for each alternative. 

[432] Reeree: Relationship between the individual and society. I feel that society can 

be compared, in many ways, to the way an individual bird might be viewed among a flock 

of birds. Society is full of various “cliques;” groups of individuals that share a common 

interests, views, or purposes. It’s interesting to watch a flock of birds. They follow each 

other without question. The bird in the lead changes direction and the others change as well. 

I believe that people want to be accepted in a group. I think that need is inherent in people. 

As a result, people are often willing to blindly change things about themselves, following the 

1

2 2012fa Econ 5080 U of Utah 

“lead bird,” hopefully resulting in acceptance among the group as a whole. This definitely 

has pros and cons. On the positive, individuals’ need for acceptance is strong. Individuals 

that find that feel a sense of belonging. However, it can also have a very negative effect, both 

on the individual who “belongs” to the group, and for the person who does not. Someone 

that blindly follows in order to be accepted often has to sacrifice their own beliefs and morals 

in order to “fit in.” And for the individual who is not a part of a group suffers many negative 

feelings of “not belonging.” Society, on the other hand, can also be compared to a bumble 

bee and a flowering plant. Without the work of the individual, nothing gets accomplished 

for the group as a whole. It’s extremely important for society to have each individual. For 

without the individuals, there is no society. A bumble bee works hard, on an individual 

level, in order to benefit the colony. This can also be seen within society; those individuals 

working to benefit the larger group. I believe that most people want to do good and do their 

part to help in society; there is a wonderful sense of accomplishment in doing this. However, 

people are often willing to sacrifice a lot in order for group acceptance. 

Message [432] referenced by [453]. Next Message by Reeree is [610]. 

[433] Neela: graded A– Birds and Bees. The relationship between individual and society 

could be compared to both the relationship between an individual bird and a flock of birds, 

and the relationship between the bumble bee and the flowering plant. In Annotations it 

says, “Individuals must use the social relations and institutions in order to pursue their own 

goals” (page 221). One could compare the flock of birds to the social relations necessary 

to pursue the individual birds’ goals. Consecutively, one could compare the institutions,

U of Utah Econ 5080 2012fa 3 

needed in order for the bumble bee to pursue its own goals, to the flowering plant. However, 

I believe the comparison between an individual bird and flock of birds better represents the 

comparison between individual and society. 

The pro for comparing the relationship between individual and society with an individual 

bird and a flock of birds, is that the flock of birds can represent the social relations which 

provide the “character masks” they need to take on to survive. This comparison is also 

supported by the following statement in Annotations, “...this social framework can only 

persist if it enables individuals to survive and reproduce; otherwise individuals would have 

no choice but to act outside the social framework” (page 221). The flock of birds can enable 

the individual bird to survive by providing protection, power in numbers, etc. The flock 

of birds can also enable the individual bird to reproduce, as society enables the individual 

to reproduce. The con to comparing the relationship between individual and society with 

an individual bird and flock of birds is that the flock of birds as society will more likely 

determine what that individual bird will do compared to a flowering plant for a bumble bee. 

The pro for using the relationship between the bumble bee and the flowering plant for 

a comparison is that the flowering plant portrays this characteristic of society as stated in 

Annotations accurately, “Society does not determine what the individuals do, nor does it 

guarantee the individuals their survival” (page 221). The con for comparing it with a bumble 

bee and a flowering plant is that the flowering plant, as society, does not represent this 

characteristic of society as stated in Annotations, “Society does not determine what the


individuals do, nor does it guarantee the individuals their survival” (page 221). In a way, the 

flowering plant is needed for the bumble bee to survive, because the pollen they collect from 

flowers is taken back to the hive for food, especially for the young. Also, the flowering plant 

as society does not enable the bumble bee to reproduce, which as stated in Annotations, “...if 

it enables individuals to survive and reproduce...” (Page 221). 

Message [433] referenced by [453]. Next Message by Neela is [594]. 

[453] Hans: I tried to be outrageous but didn’t succeed. Reeree [432] didn’t even notice 

that the question said “flower,” she thought it said “colony.” Another example that people 

read into the text what they expect to read. Neela [433] noticed the flower, but didn’t say 

anything about the most outrageous aspect of this comparison: while human societies consist 

of humans, flowers do not consist of bees. On the other hand, one of the reasons why I chose 

this comparison is that both flowers and society provide means for reproduction. Flowers 

provide means for reproduction, namely food, and society provides means for reproduction, 

namely the production process for which society is necessary. Neela missed that part. 

Flocking is not “follow the leader” behavior. It is self-organization with subtle interaction 

and “swarm intelligence.” See 

http://www.aviation-for-kids.com/Swarm-intelligence.html 

When people today think of society, they usually think of social fads and pressures and 

how to be popular and how not to offend others (be “social”). This low view of society may


be influenced by the experience of the pathological society we live in, and it also fits together 

with the Hollywood culture of rugged individualism. When Marx thinks about society he 

thinks about production and about providing the infrastructure for human flourishing. If we 

want to change our society for the better we have to learn to organize and work collectively. 

It cannot be done by even the most heroic individual. 

Message [453] referenced by [509], [532], [812], and [880]. Next Message by Hans is [464]. 

[454] SLOVENEC: I think the relationship between an individual and society should be 

compared to a bumble bee and a flowering plant. The reason for this is because the flowering 

plant is dependent on the bees role and function as a pollinator. Without bees, flowers would 

struggle to reproduce and thrive. This is a pro of the bee analogy, the flower offers a common 

good that the bees benefit from and therefore provides an incentive for them, the bees, to 

maintain it. Similarly, society is that of a flowering plant that desperately depends on the 

individual contributing, or not contributing, to it. Without individual effort and contribution, 

society would fail to innovate and provide those things that we, as a whole, depend on (i.e. 

stable economic activity, social programs for the poor, basic protective rights to its citizens, 

etc). The flowering plant offers the bees pollen and nutrients they need to survive, so another 

pro for this analogy is that the bees have a common focus that, if properly managed, benefits 

everyone in the long term. 

That is why I feel the relationship between an individual and society is better compared 

to a bee among flowers instead of a bird among other birds. Although I don’t think this


is a real con of the Bee analogy, one could make the argument that if every bee does all it 

can to maintain the plant, they may not interact as closely as they could in the bird analogy, 

therefore hurting their productivity. Another con for this analogy is that bees interacting 

solely with the plant doesn’t leave much room for specialization. Unless the bees interact 

with each other and categorize certain tasks, each bee will try to manage all the jobs by 

itself and waste time switching from each job. That being said, I do see how both analogies 

effectively describe the individual/societal relationship. 

In the case of a bird among other birds, society is comprised of the aggregate activities 

of humans. The act of individuals contributing to their own respective trades automatically 

results in coordinated efforts among its participants. Therefore, all societal things that we 

enjoy, or don’t enjoy, are the result of others’ actions. Another pro to this analogy is that each 

bird has the freedom of choice to positively, or negatively, interact with its fellow beings. 

However, one con that is present with this metaphor is the failure to include common 

focus that binds “the birds” together in one cause. Birds just interacting with other birds 

are like humans interacting with other humans. Although the birds are working with each 

other, this doesn’t mean that they’re being productive. I submit that the remedy to this 

shortcoming is that the “Bee Relationship” automatically corrects the coordination issue via 

individual efforts to maintain the flowering plant binding everyone together for a common 

good. Another con of the bird analogy is that it fails to protect the bird society from a social 

ill believed among the majority (i.e. if the majority of birds believe eating other birds is


socially acceptable). Eventually, this belief and action following will be the demise of this 

bird society until something changes. This con is also relevant to the Bee society in that 

if the majority believe it is wise to chew away the outer layer of the plant stem, the plant 

will eventually be starved of nutrients and wither away, thereby hurting the Bee society as a 

whole. However, again, I think that bees working to maintain the flowering plant will be the 

most likely society to avoid engaging in long term destructive behavior and is therefore the 

most appropriate comparison to an individual living in a society. 

Hans: You had this all in one paragraph. This is much too long. 

Next Message by SLOVENEC is [502]. 

[509] Keeper: Relationships between individuals and society can be compared to nature 

in many aspects, more than just comparing an individual bird and a flock of birds. When we 

look into different types of societies we can compare them to different birds in nature. 

As an individual, say a lone hawk, your dependence relies solely on yourself. Being 

able to stand strong and provided for yourself and has its rewards. But it will cost you a 

lot with many different struggles. This could be an individual society like the USA. Many 

individuals with lots of struggles and a few “Lone Hawks” that have been greatly rewarded. 

On the other hand we can compare a selfless society like many Asian societies to a flock 

of geese. In this society the geese use their numbers to make workloads lighter for one 

another. With these large numbers avoiding predators becomes easier. In these cultures


many individuals take less risk to spread the reward over to as many as possible. Instead of 

focusing on the good of one, the focus is on the good of all. 

Hans: Both the US and Japan are capitalist societies, although the cultural attitudes of the individuals living there 

are very different. The question was not about the cultural attitudes but about the actual relations. 

You missed the point of the question which I tried to clarify in [453]. 

Originally you had “on many aspects,” I changed it to “in many aspects.” “From many aspects” would also have 

been possible. 

About your second sentence: are you comparing societies with birds or with flocks of birds? 

Malformed sentence “Being able to stand strong and provided for yourself and has its rewards.” 

Next Message by Keeper is [1438]. 

[532] EricR: The relationship between and individual and society is best compared to the 

relationship between an individual bird and a flock of birds. 

a. The bird does not need the flock of birds to survive. However, the bird will have 

many great benefits being in the flock of birds compared to the bird being alone in the 

wilderness—much like an individual benefits greatly being part of a society, but not needed 

to survive. But the flock of birds is not dependent on the single bird. Much like a society is 

not dependent on a single individual to join. (This is debatable if the individual is playing a 

main part in the society, e.g. a farmer for crops in order to feed to society) 

b. The bumble bee and the flower plant is a totally different relationship. The bumble bee 

is dependent on the flowering plant to survive, however this deviates from the first example 

and the flower also benefits from the bumble bee. — This is similar to a society, since the


individual can play a part in the society which will also benefit the society. But not in a way 

that the individual is completely reliant on the society in order to survive. 

Hans: What makes you think humans can survive without society? Even if society does not feed the individual, 

society creates the framework in which the individual can feed himself or herself. 

You are flatly contradicting and ignoring things I said in [453] without any attempts to address the arguments 

there. 

Next Message by EricR is [581]. 

[547] Speq: The Birds and the Bees. The bird would be most people’s initial reaction to 

this question. The bird is a single species that works together to achieve a common goal that 

benefits the group. Birds fly in a V formation. The bird in the front of the formation, at the 

point of the V, is the one that is doing the most work. The birds that fly behind benefit from 

updraft caused by the leader bird. The birds will switch positions during flight and take turns 

being the leader bird. The work load is shared amongst the birds pretty evenly. Humans can 

do this too, but we don’t. With a flock of birds it is much easier to catch cheaters or free 

riders. But, due to the immense size of our society, catching cheaters and free riders is much 

more difficult. So instead, we live in a society that is more bee-like. 

When the bumble bee wants nectar, it finds a flowering plant. On the other hand when the 

flowering plant wants to spread its pollen, it attracts a passing bumble bee. The two entities 

come together to make an exchange. It is almost as if the flower says, “I’ll trade you this 

nectar if you spread my pollen to the other flowering plants.” And the bee responds, “I want 

your nectar. So I’ll spread your pollen.” This is much more symbolic of how society works.


Adam has a coat and would like some linen. Karl has some linen and would like a coat. 

The two form a symbiotic relationship for the duration of the exchange. The draw back of 

the bee analogy is the perfect pairs found in nature versus a human’s ever expanding needs. 

There is no medium of exchange. The bee doesn’t buy his nectar with nature-dollars. And 

the plant doesn’t purchase the bee’s delivery service either. For this system to work, the bees 

must be paired perfectly to the plants and vice versa. 

Next Message by Speq is [679]. 

[548] Luke: graded C Like a Bee. Comparing the relationship of a bee and a flowering 

plant to that of society and an individual, the bee would represent society, and the flower the 

individual. From the text the following list are pro’s to the scenario of the bee, I felt like it 

fit fairly well and I couldn’t come up with any cons. 

PROS Like a bee: 

1. The flower depends on its relationship to the bee to reproduce and the bee depends on 

the flower to provide the nourishment that it needs to survive. 

2. The labor to produce pollen by the flower can be considered homogeneous between 

flowers. 

3. The bee does not tell the flower how much pollen to make or when to make it. 

4. The bee doesn’t guarantee that it will collect the pollen from a particular flower and 

therefore does not guarantee its survival.

CONS Like a bee: 

I couldn’t come up with any cons. 


The scenario of the individual bird to the flock was also a good example, however, I was 

able to come up with a few cons for this one, so I feel like the example of the bee would fit 

a little better with Marx’s view points. 

PROS like a bird: 

1. While flying, birds in a V formation use each others labor to advance their flock and 

travel farther then the could individually. 

2. In this V formation every individual’s labor is homogeneous or considered equal to the 

other birds flying in the flock. 

CONS like a bird: 

1. Labor used to find nourishment is an individual effort. Birds are often competing 

against each other when it comes to finding food. It does not provide the social framework 

needed to enable them to survive and reproduce. 

2. While flying, the flock determines what each individual bird does. They cannot leave 

the formation and fly on their own or they will not survive. 

Hans: Do you still think Capital lays out Marx’s view points, i.e., he wants labor to be homogeneous? This hurt 

your grade, despite the creativity shown in this answer.


Next Message by Luke is [968]. 

Question 356 is 174 in 1995WI, 153 in 1995ut, 186 in 1996sp, 206 in 1997sp, 207 in 

1998WI, 292 in 2005fa, 312 in 2007SP, 322 in 2008SP, and 320 in 2008fa: 

Question 356 Which social relations must exist between producers so that they exchange 

(or buy and sell) their products as commodities? Describe groups or societies which have 

social relations that preclude exchange between individual members. 

[423] Gladwell: graded A+ Don’t talk to strangers. In order that producers exchange 

their products as commodities they must have private property rights, with producers treating 

each other as owners of the commodities. These rights must take precedence over all other 

rights, as Gottlieb argues in [1996sp:282]. 

Once these rights are in place, producers must treat each other as strangers. Ziggy 

[2008fa:923] argues this by pointing out that friends don’t typically sell to each other, except 

at a discounted price. Fenix [2007SP:462] alludes to it by saying that the sole reason 

people engage in business is to better their personal situation. In exchanging commodities 

it’s typically for personal gain, so the producers must be strangers. 

Since it is necessary that producers be strangers in order to exchange, the prime example 

of a group that precludes exchange between individual members is the family. A clear 

example of this happened to me yesterday. Although my dad was planning on selling a


dvd player at a garage sale, he chose to give it to me for free. Why would he give it me, 

even though he was going to sell it to customers at a garage sale? I’m family, they’re just 

strangers. 

Hans: Good references! I like it that you cited ordinary class participants, not the Marxist Hans. 

Next Message by Gladwell is [463]. 

[1249] PJM: Social Relations Necessary for Commodity Exchange. The exchange of 

commodities requires that individuals relate to each other as private property owners who 

are strangers. 

First of all, producers must relate to each other as owners of private property. Even 

though it appears as a relation between the individual and his commodity, this social relation 

takes the form of a contract between an individual and the rest of society. That is, since 

commodities cannot and do not have a will of their own as inanimate objects, they must be 

treated as imbued with their owner’s will. In fact, Marx formulates this concept by saying 

that the commodity owner’s will “resides in his or her commodities”. Marx is saying that 

the rest of society must treat commodities as if the commodity owner intended for them 

not to be stolen or expropriated, but that access to such commodities is only guaranteed by 

exchanging them with other commodities. If this relation is to hold, commodity owners 

must subordinate their bodily desires to possess commodities to the private property rights 

protecting the individual ownership of commodities.


While the social relation of private property typical stems from government legal action, 

commodity exchange also depends on the largely non-legal relation whereby commodity 

owners relate to each other as strangers. This relationships arises out of the individuality 

of the producers, who engage in exchange to realize individual gains in the form of specific 

use-values. Often times, special social groups such as families or business partnerships 

can interfere with this relation necessary for commodity exchange. When we trade with our 

family members for example, we may not necessarily be trading based on the desire to fulfill 

individual needs or acting in our own interest. In such cases, our actions will not reflect the 

individualistic purposes that necessitate and accurately reflect commodity exchange. 

Next Message by PJM is [1540]. 

[1314] Frankie: graded A Social relations and exchange. Producers must respect the 

property rights of others and value that right above all else, in order for the exchange of 

commodities to exist. In [1996sp:282] there was an extreme example used that illustrates 

that for us. Gottlieb says “The needs of other individuals must take a back seat to the commodities’ 

owners. The starving child in the slums must be allowed to become ill and die in 

order for the store owner to retain his right of ownership; even if he chooses to throw away 

the food the child needs so badly.” I believe that shows that property rights are extremely 

important in the ability to exchange commodities because something that someone will die 

without is not given away even if it is to be thrown away. Certain social relations exist that


preclude exchange between individual members these are. Friends and family relations preclude 

exchange because you may want to sell at a reduced price or even give the commodity 

away, and this represents a problem in the exchange process. 

Next Message by Frankie is [1316]. 

[1367] Agloeck: The social relations in a capitalist mode of production are precisely 

defined. Individuals are subject to judicial law that enforces private property ownership 

of the commodities they have, and trade their commodities under non-coercive conditions. 

Marx describes commodity owners in a capitalist society as “the characters who appear on 

the economic stage are merely personifications of economic relations, and it is the bearers of 

these economic relations that they come into contact with each other” (pg. 178). Marx looks 

at the economic roles of individuals, not the individuals themselves because individuals can 

have multiple and contradictory roles. 

Commodity producers in capitalism need to be strangers when they are exchanging products 

because each individual is trying to maximize profit for himself in the exchange. This 

breaks down when individuals have familiar relationships prior to the exchange. For example, 

if I purchase a couch from my brother he is much more likely to sell it to me for less 

money than he would a stranger because I am family. 

Next Message by Agloeck is [1370]. 

[1391] Roosty: Dad’s Car. In order for producers to be able to exchange their products as 

commodities, their social relations must be as strangers to one another. Because a producer


exchanges his/her commodity to achieve some sort of gain, whether it be in monetary profit 

or in the use-value of the commodity in which he receives in the exchange, the relationship 

of strangers is required to enable this personal gain. An example to illustrate this necessity of 

selling to a stranger is demonstrated by a producer selling a commodity to family members. 

When my father was selling our family car, I managed to buy it from him for $600. At this 

price, my dad did not gain, rather lose on this transaction. Had my dad sold it to a stranger, 

his asking price would have been at least $2,500. This is an example that exhibits why the 

social relation between producers must be strangers in order to exchange their products as 

commodities. 

Next Message by Roosty is [1405]. 

[1418] Novatore: For producers to buy and sell products, they must have an estranged 

social relationship. That is to say, groups such as kin groups are more likely to share products 

freely, but people that do not have close ties either through family or community have reason 

to exchange products for values they perceive as equal. For example, I work as a cook for 

a living; the food I make is a commodity which is exchanged for money. Though if I am at 

home cooking for my family, I am not going to charge them money for the food I made. 

Next Message by Novatore is [1419]. 

[1425] Vini: The primary social relation that must exist between producers is the existence 

of personal property rights. These are fundamental for exchange because in order to buy or 

sell commodities the producer must first have ownership rights derived from producing the 

commodity. Social relations that preclude exchange between individual members would be


members of the same family. For instance, a family member may feel inclined to give a 

commodity to a fellow members at no monetary cost versus the possibility of exchanging it 

with a stranger for money. Strangers try to get the better hand in exchange, not familiarity 

between family and friends. 

Next Message by Vini is [1427]. 

Question 365 is 176 in 1995WI, 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, and 349 in 2011fa: 

Question 365 In chapter Two, Marx depicts commodities as conscious beings which are 

eager to be exchanged, but do not care about the use-value of the commodity they are exchanged 

for. Why are commodities, which are inanimate things, depicted here as beings with 

their own will which comes into conflict with the will of their owners, and why do they not 

care about the use-value of the other commodity? 

[451] AbeFroman: The Commodity Creature. In chapter two, Marx anthropomorphizes 

commodity-form of products in order to explore how societies (as opposed to individuals) 

use commodities to dictate the actions of individuals within the market. Marx describes this 

relationship in chapter one, section four: 

the commodity form of the products of labor, and the value relation in which 

it represents itself, have absolutely nothing to do with the physical nature


of the products or with any relations they have as physical objects. It is the 

specific social relation of the people themselves which assumes for them . 

. . the form of a relation of things” (Marx, Hans annotations, pp. 180-181) 

So, when Marx acts as if commodities have a will of their own, he is looking at commodities, 

not as physical things, but as social objects. He is essentially creating a creature out of 

the fetish-like character of the commodity. This creature was created to chase money and 

has no interest the use-value of objects. It responds only to the value of other commodities, 

when this value is expressed through exchange. 

If one could remove the social bonds from the commodity producer (the market-process 

that turns useful objects into commodities), he should be able to treat the objects he and others 

create in a way that is based on their use-value. He would no longer be driven externally 

by the exchange-value others have placed on commodities. 

Message [451] referenced by [565]. Next Message by AbeFroman is [787]. 

[565] Carol: The Disobedient Commodity. In Chapter Two, Marx personifies commodities 

by portraying them as agents disobedient to their owners. This illustration is used 

to clearly contrast the two goals the commodity producer pursues during the transaction. 

When the commodity producer takes his commodity to the marketplace, he has two objectives 

in mind. Driven by the personal dimension of the transaction, the commodity producer 

first would want to generate the use-value that best meets his needs at the time. Acting on 

the social dimension of the transaction, the commodity producer would like to realize his


commodity’s value. The market is necessary for achieving this goal because what is important 

here is what the commodity will be exchanged for given the market/social relationships 

between the commodities in the exchange. 

In this sense, the owner can determine the use-value of a commodity, but the market 

relationships of value and exchange of a commodity are social dimensions that are out of 

the commodity producer’s hand. Therefore, when commodities are being exchanged, they 

are not concerned about each other’s use values, but each other’s values created by abstract 

labor and time. The commodities themselves may have a “desire” to be exchanged because 

of the labor contained in them. This is why Marx depicts commodities as conscious beings 

that are agents independent of its owner. 

AbeFroman [451] notes that through the description, Marx is showing how the commodities 

are “created to chase money and has no interest the use-value of objects. It responds only 

to the value of other commodities, when this value is expressed through exchange.” I agree 

that the personified commodity has no interest in the use-value of other commodities; however, 

I think Marx at this point is not relating the exchange to monetary profit. Marx is 

demonstrating how in an exchange, the commodity itself performs in a society-wide relationship 

that decides if the commodity fits into the social division of labor. The exchange is 

representative of the socially necessary labor in the commodity.


Hans: Your critique of AbeFroman is correct. They are not chasing money, which would imply that their owner 

wants more and more money. They are chasing other commodities, because they need proof that the labor which 

they contain fits into the social division of labor. 

Next Message by Carol is [744]. 

Question 375 is 178 in 1995WI, 156 in 1995ut, 189 in 1996sp, 202 in 1997WI, 201 in 

1997ut, 265 in 2002fa, 278 in 2003fa, and 337 in 2008SP: 

Question 375 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. 

[512] Skylerp: Commodity owners contradictions. Barterers are constantly facing the 

contradiction between the individual process and social process. In the individual process, 

owner A wants to exchange his commodity for another commodity that satisfy his use-value 

needs. Owner A does not care for the use-value owner B will receive from his commodity 

that he is exchanging. Owner A believes his commodidty is equal to all other commodities 

being traded. Marx calls this the General equivalent. There can be only one General 

equivalent in a market, but every owner believes their commodity is the one General equivalent. 

The big problem is Owner A wants credit for his commodity he is exchanging whether 

or not it provides use-value to owner B. This is the social process contradiciton. Without 

money being exchanged they can’t be exclusively individual and social. With only being 

able to barter one commodity for another, this would make it extremely difficult because


each owner would have to produce a commodity that has equal value and use-value to that 

which commodity they will exchange for. Meat [1997WI:212] makes a good comparion 

with car production and watch production and the difficulty these two owners would have 

trading with one another. In today’s society it is much easier for us dealing with this contradiciton 

because of money. If we are looking to fulfill our use-value we can pay the full 

price or if we want to settle for something less that may not give us all the use-value we need 

we can just buy something cheaper or less valued. Just like buying school books for classes. 

It’s very easy to pay full price for the newest book edition for class, but its also very easy to 

buy an older edition for much less. The question you have to ask is: does the extra use-value 

you gain from the newer book edition benefit you more than buying the older edition and 

using the extra money left over for something else? 

Next Message by Skylerp is [652]. 

[1300] JohnLennon: Commodity owners face many contradictions while using the barter 

system. For a barter system to work both parties engaged in trading commodities must have 

a need for the commodity in which they are trading for. Say one person has ten chicken and 

another person has ten coats. The owner of the chickens needs three coats for his family. 

The chicken owner may then propose to the coat maker “Six chickens for three coats?”. 

Depending on if the coat maker needs chickens or not he will agree or disagree. In the 

barter system there is no set price for chickens to coats (unless chickens became currency or 

money only, but that isn’t part of a true barter system). Bartering depends on the needs of 

commodity owners or not at all. Perhaps the chicken owner gives a chicken to a relative for


nothing in return because he has an excess of chickens. This is an example of how a barter 

system could work if only one party needs a good and the other does not. 

Next Message by JohnLennon is [1301]. 

[1373] Brie: There are two factors in the barter process; first, the individual process. In 

this process, individuals that make trades want to be sure that whatever they do barter for 

will provide an adequate use-value for themselves personally. The other aspect, the social 

process, reiterates that the individuals want to receive the same value in return which they 

are bartering with. The following situation properly demonstrates this principle. 

A home builder barters with a car dealership owner. In this barter, the home builder 

agrees to build a home for the car dealer in trade for a new Lamborghini. As the building 

process gets underway, the car dealer begins to ask for upgrades which were not originally 

agreed upon, and demands that any work be redone if it is not up to his satisfaction. At this 

point, the use-value of the Lamborghini becomes less to the builder than his skills and cost to 

create the product which the car dealer demands. The builder quickly realizes that he would 

have been better off to pay cash (or the general equivalent) for the Lamborghini as the barter 

is now unequal and thus, there is a contradiction. 

Hans: Very interesting example! 

Next Message by Brie is [1386]. 

[1413] Ula: Barter. In a barter situation, all parties enter the market with their own 

personal interests in mind, as well as the social interests of the marketplace. Just like all


other owners, owner A enters the market with the goal to exchange his commodity (for 

which he has no use-value) with a commodity that fulfills his personal use-value. He is not 

interested in any other owner’s use-value. He is only interested in exchanging his commodity 

for a commodity that can fulfill his use-value. At the same time, he is focused on getting the 

most exchange-value for his commodity. This is the social aspect of the market. After all, 

the exchange of the commodity requires the social interaction that can only take place within 

the marketplace. So we see that in a barter situation, owner A must play both sides of the 

equation–the buyer and seller. He must buy what he needs (use-value) with his commodity 

that he wants to get the best value for (exchange-value). 

This is different from a sale because in a sale situation there is the existence of a general 

equivalent or money. The general equivalent allows the seller of a commodity to just focus 

on the exchange-value side of the equation. Also, it allows the buyer of a commodity to 

simply focus on the use-value side of the equation. Again, in the barter is a contradictory 

situation because owner A (and all other commodity owners) must be the buyer and the 

seller. What if owner B does not want to exchange with owner A? 

For instance, owner A brings his flip flops to the market to exchange for owner B’s corn. 

Unfortunately, owner B has no use for flip flops. owner B is in the market for other food 

items. Now what? Will owner A sell his flip flops at a discount to lure owner B into selling 

him the corn that he needs? Perhaps. Then, however, owner A is not getting the full value 

for his flip flops.


Next Message by Ula is [1416]. 

[1438] Keeper: Commodity owners face contradictions when they are in a market place 

trying to barter their products instead of acting in a buying or selling position. These include 

the contradiction of full product value. By setting a barter they are limiting themselves to 

the market place by allowing a evaluation of their product to be disengaged with the market 

place and should remove their product altogether. 

::Q:719 

Self-interested capitalists will focus on treating their workers well because it is a incentive 

for the capitalists. If they can have a happy, productive, engaged workforce then the capitalist 

will be bale to extract as much value from the work force as possible. Adding benefits, 

perks, higher quality environments, only incentives the work force to preform better. Where 

the argument goes wrong is that the capitalist will do whatever means they have too to keep 

a work force happy. This is not true, the capitalist will only do as much as he can to still be 

as profitable as possible. 

::Q:377 

Marx is referring to the commodities owner equity stake or ownership displayed by the 

“deed” pf the commodity. Having this mind-frame that we own and must have a say in its 

use is a inappropriate mind set to have. This can be detrimental to the value that could be 

extracted form such a commodity.

::Q:596 


THe difference between value of labor power and value created by labor power can be 

determined by the labor force inputs. The value of labor can be a set or measured amount 

that is used to create, improve, or produce a good or service. The value created by a labor 

force is a investment of the labor force as a input to that good or service. 

Hans: In order to get credit for your answers to questions 719, 377, and 596, you have to submit them in 3 separate 

emails. 

First Message by Keeper is [479]. 

Exam Question 377 is 180 in 1995WI, 191 in 1996sp, 204 in 1997WI, 211 in 1997sp, 203 

in 1997ut, 221 in 1999SP, 231 in 2000fa, 279 in 2003fa, 313 in 2004fa, 328 in 2007SP, 

338 in 2008SP, 352 in 2009fa, 381 in 2010fa, 363 in 2011fa, and 191 in Answer: 

Exam Question 377 Which “deed” is Marx referring to in the following passage: “In their 

dilemma our commodity-owners think like Faust: ‘In the beginning was the deed.’ They have 

therefore already acted before thinking.” 

[504] KapitalSB: (content A– form 95%) Mr. Deeds aka Money Mayweather. Like 

PLG said in [2010fa:808] “The deed is the selection of a specific commodity as general 

equivalent.” From reading 2.2 [The Deed] I would answer that the “deed” is the creation of 

money. The definition of money is an generally accepted payment of medium of exchanges, 

such as good and silver. Society as a whole must accept it. For example one individual,


Mr Mayweather, wants to buy flowers. He can either barter or use an medium of exchange 

(money) to acquire the good. 

Also, Neolib in [2003fa:253] used a great thing and I also feel it is important. “Marx 

states, ‘Through the agency of the social process it becomes the specific social function of 

the excluded commodity to be the general equivalent. It thus becomes—money’ [180:3– 

181:1].” 

Hans: Marx differs from most modern mainstream economics in that he does not define money as medium of 

circulation. His first function of money is measure of value, i.e., it gives the material for all commodities to have a 

value form, namely their price form. 

The phrase “an generally accepted payment of medium of exchanges” is malformed, and “Neolib ... used a 

great thing” is sloppy writing not appropriate for a course with which you meet the writing requirement. 

Next Message by KapitalSB is [656]. 

[1184] Jason: graded A The Deed. The deed Marx is referring to is the social selection 

of a specific commodity as general equivalent. 

Next Message by Jason is [1187]. 

[1288] Kannon: The deed is the creation of the general equivalent (and the money form). 

By acting as commodity producers, the act of creating a commodity (as opposed to a barter 

for example) necessitates a measure of value that is one-dimensional - and Marx shows this 

to be the general equivalent. 

Hans: It is not a creation but a selection or exclusion, because many commodities already act as equivalents before 

the deed. Now the role of “equivalent” is limited to just one commodity.


Next Message by Kannon is [1289]. 

[1302] JohnLennon: The “deed” Marx is using here is to describe the thought process 

of the commodity owners. The commodity owners have “therefore already acted before 

thinking” when it comes to trading that commodity. The trading parties have already put a 

pre-determined value of the commodity they are trading for. The “deed” could be money or 

the equivalent or the commodity being traded. This can cause problems when determining 

price and what is “fair” between buyer and seller. 


[1349] DJB: The deed. The deed is the fact that workers think they are selling their labor 

but what they don’t realize is their labor power. The capitalists own the rights of production 

but the workers own the labor power and the workers don’t know how much power they 

actually have. 

Hans: A deed is something you do, not something you think. 

Next Message by DJB is [1351]. 

[1366] Ula: The ”deed” The “deed” that Marx is referring to is when gold became the 

general equivalent–the one commodity that would become the measure of value and could 

be exchanged for all other commodities. 


[1386] Brie: Marx’s referral of the “deed” pertains to the commodity owner and their 

thought process. The selection of a commodity as a general equivelant, or the agreement 

that all individuals use the same commodity to determine value is the deed.


Hans: Such an agreement is not merely a thought process but indeed a “deed.” 


[1435] MKW: The deed to which Marx is referring is the setting of price by the commodity 

owner. 

Hans: This is the first thing one has to do if one wants to sell a commodity, but it is not what Marx refers to with 

his Goethe quote. 

Next Message by MKW is [1436]. 

[1445] Jess: graded B– Referenced “deed”. This “deed” Marx is referring to, is the 

process of handling loans. To a capitalist, a loan is both a blessing and a curse. It is a 

blessing, because it helps them to invest in their corporations, and allows for them to reap 

more profits. It is a curse, however, because they must pay this money back. This causes 

a decrease in the amount of profits a capitalist may accumulate. Loans can, and should be 

considered as the capitalist’s worst nightmare. They have acted (obtaining a loan) before 

thinking (understanding the loss of profits). 

Hans: Creative interpretation of a sentence whose context in Marx’s argument and whose previous answer you 

apparently don’t recall. 

Next Message by Jess is [1448]. 

Question 378 Why can commodity owners relate their commodities to each other as commodities 

only if they relate them to each other as values? Also explain what it means to 

“relate their commodities to each other as commodities” and “relate their commodities to 

each other as values.”


[478] Hans: The “Find your own Prince” Dating Agency. Commodities are the unity 

of value and use-value. If the linen weaver wants to give 20 yards of linen for 1 coat because 

she needs a coat, she is trying to relate linen and coat with each other as commodities. Both 

value and use-value count. The role of the use-value is explicit (she knows exactly what 

kind of coat she wants), while the role of value is more implicit (the fact that she is able to 

afford a coat at the market exchange rate has to do with the values of linen and coat). Marx 

says that this transaction is only possible if she relates the commodities as values first, i.e., 

the value aspect of the transaction must be made explicit and it is the first thing the weaver 

has to do. This is important. Although individuals are primarily interested in use-values, 

market realities force them to be interested in values. I said similar things in [144]. Using 

the metaphor of my message [476], the linen weaver needs the value relations as a dating 

agency in order to find the coat. 

Now you can stop reading. Only those interested in the gory details should continue, 

because this is my own developing thinking. It is different than what I wrote in [2010fa:149], 

where I treated the value relations not merely as a dating agency, but thought that at some 

level the weaver is actually interested in value. Right now I am trying to explain it on the 

premises that the linen weaver does not care about value, yet the market forces her to take 

value very seriously. 

A dating agency would go through all the tailors in their database to find someone who 

fits together with the weaver. The value form of the linen does it in a more elegant way. They


advertise themselves as the “find your own prince” dating agency. Like any dating agency, 

they send every subscriber a questionaire where the weaver for instance has to fill in how 

much of her linen she wants to trade for coats at the exchange rate of 20 yards of linen per 

coat, and many other similar questions. So far nothing unusual. 

But what comes next is so unusual that the designers of this dating agency hope to be 

bought out by Google eventually. They select one of the commodities, say gold, as general 

equivalent. This is what Marx calls “the deed.” Then they use their proprietary computer 

program to distill from their database a price list with the market clearing exchange rates of 

all commodities for gold. Then they send a copy of this price list to each subscriber, with a 

cover letter saying: 

“Produce as much as you want of the commodity you are specializing in, 

for instance linen or whatever you are producing, sell this commodity on 

the market at the price printed in our price list, and use the money to buy 

whatever you want at the prices in this price list. We guarantee that, as 

long as you adhere to our price list, you will be able to sell the amount 

you have chosen, and be able to buy whatever you want to buy, because 

our proprietory computer program has set the prices at exactly the market 

clearing levels.”


This is a metaphor for what the value form of the linen does. In this metaphor, the “deed” 

is an easy, almost trivial step, because a centralized dating agency takes the place of the 

swarm behavior of all commodity traders. In reality, my [190] applies. Then the dating 

agency tells everyone to sell, i.e., treat their commodities as values, in order to be able to 

buy, i.e., to get hold of the use-values they want. 

Furthermore, this metaphor calls the computer program “proprietary” because Marx simply 

assumes at this point in Capital that market clearing prices coincide with values. How 

this is achieved is a different process, which Marx simply assumes to work, without going 

into the details how. He wanted to write an additional volume about “Competition” where 

this process is explored, but never did. See also [185] about this. 

Message [478] referenced by [476] and [1449]. Next Message by Hans is [735]. 

[1129] Justin: Commodity owners can only relate their commodities to each other in 

terms of value, or exchange value, because that is the form of the commodity that allows it 

to relate to others. Individuals are mainly interested in the use values of their commodities. 

Use value, however, only has meaning in terms of an individual commodity, and it means 

nothing to attempt to compare the use values of different commodities. Exchange value, on 

the other hand, is the exact property of the commodity that allows it to be compared to other 

commodities through their own exchange values. Without looking in terms of exchange 

value, it is impossible for the commodity owners to relate their commodities to each other. 

Hans: I corrected your second sentence in order to make your answer more coherent. This sentence was originally 

“If the commodities are related as commodities, this emphasizes the use value of each individual commodity.”


Metaphorically, in order to get at the use-values of the other commodities, individual must pass through the 

value door, because the social relations between commodities go through the values only. I.e., when you write 

“compare,” it is not an individual looking at the commodities and comparing them with each other, but social 

processes, the competition between consumers and producers, compare the commodities, and the only possible 

socially valid basis for this comparison is the value, i.e., the abstract labor content, of these commodities. 

Next Message by Justin is [1130]. 

[1200] RedRyder: Value — Third dimension. I happen to like sports a great deal, this 

passion of mine is most intense in regards to college football. For years I have passionately 

followed the sport even blogging about it in my free time and like many college football 

fans I have had to ask myself, how do I differentiate between the many teams who compete 

across the United States every season, and how can we crown one champion of them all. 

This is not meant to be a critique on the state of college football or the BCS but merely a 

metaphor. On my blog I regularly rank what I feel are the 25 best teams in the nation. 

Doing so presents me with several challenges, the chief most being how do I compare so 

many different ‘commodities’? I really am at a loss of how each team from USC to Utah 

State and over to Alabama compare as far as commodities go without assigning some sort 

of value to each one. These values are dictated of course by my own feelings of what’s important 

to a team but nevertheless must fall in line with those values dictated by the invisible 

hand of sports, which tells us all what’s valuable in a team such as who did you beat, how 

tough was your schedule, how good did you look throughout the season, etc. Then and only 

then, after assigning out values to each team, can I even hope to compare so many teams


who might not have even played each other, in such a way as to say who is more valuable 

than any other. These values allow me to take so many differing commodities and compare 

them against the market and see just what they exchange for. For this becomes the only way 

in which two seemingly disparate commodities can even be thought of as being related in 

any way. 

In the world of economics we see this very same thing, at flea markets around the world 

we see different sellers coming together trading various commodities in differing amounts 

on a daily basis. This is done thru assigning values, which is done invisibly by market 

forces, only then can efficient exchanges be made and disparate commodities be related. 

Without these values we are stuck trying to fit a square peg in a round hole, we cannot hope 

to compare any two commodities without bringing in a third dimension that adds depth to 

the market. That third dimension is value. 

Next Message by RedRyder is [1203]. 

[1217] EricR: They can only relate commodities to each other as values because they are 

using a third commodity as the General Equivalent to determine the commodity’s value. 

Relating their commodities to each other as commodities: -Relating the use-value of the 

commodity. 

Relate their commodities to each other as values: -Relating in the form as exchange-value 

in regards to the commodity. 

Hans: The General equivalent does not determine the value. Value is determined by labor content.


Relating commodities to each other as commodities does not mean relating them to each other as use-values 

but at the unities of value and use-values, i.e., not forgetting their values. 


[1224] Carol: In 180:3 – 181:1, Marx makes a distinction between the implicit and explicit 

attributes of a commodity and explains that the delineation between the two is made based 

on the instinct the commodity owners gained through their market activities. For example, 

a linen weaver might want to offer 20 yards of linen for a coat because winter is coming 

and she needs a coat to keep her warm. When the linen weaver goes to the market to make 

this transaction, she is relating the coat and the linens as commodities. The use-value is 

demonstrated explicitly here because she knows she wants a warm coat to protect her in the 

cold weather. But when the linen weaver is making the exchange on the market, the role of 

value is guiding her implicitly. Giving 20 yards of linen in exchange for a coat indicates that 

the exchange rate deals with the values of the linen and of the coat. According to Marx, the 

transaction is only possible if she sees the two commodities as values first explicitly. The 

nature of the market forces the commodity owners to relate their commodities to each other 

as commodities and see their values. 


[1320] AJH: Relating values to values. Commodity owners can relate their commodities 

to one another as commodities only if they relate the commodity to another commodity as 

value because, when two commodities want to be compared to each other there is no way to 

do this without looking at the value and comparing the value of both commodities against


one another. Relating commodity value to another commodity value can only happen if they 

compare the labor power used to produce the two commodities, and relating the commodities 

to their values is similar because the labor used to produce commodities give them value so 

you can compare the two commodities through value and the labor power used to produce 

the value of the commodity. 

Hans: Instead “there is no way to compare commodities without looking at value” it would have been better to say 

“there is no other social connection between commodities other than through their values” because they are both 

products of society’s limited pool of labor-power. 

Next Message by AJH is [1321]. 

[1449] Jag: Commodity owners relate their commodities to each other as commodities 

when they want something in exchange for something else. If I want to exchange five baseballs 

for one basketball, then I am relating them to each other as commodities. Hans uses 

a similar analogy in [478] when explaining the exchange for 20 yards of linen for one coat, 

they are being related as commodities. If I am the baseball maker, I want basketballs because 

I want to use them, I will get some sort of use-value out of them. Use-values play an important 

role in exchange because its how we determine what we want. I can only exchange 

baseballs for a basketball if I can afford to. If I only have three baseballs to exchange, then 

I can not afford a basketball because five baseballs = one basketball. Commodity owners 

relate commodities to each other as values and then once they determine the exchange will 

work according to values, they then relate them to each other as commodities. 

Next Message by Jag is [1452].


[1495] Chris: Commodity owners relate their commodities to each other as commodities 

only if they relate them to each other as values because otherwise there is no standard way 

to compare the commodities. Comparing commodities to each other as commodities does 

not give the owners a way to measure the value inherent in the commodity. A coat and three 

pounds of rice can not be compared to one another as just commodities. They have to be 

related to one another in terms of the value of them. Then they can be properly related when 

the value of them is introduced because then an exchange could be made. Value allows a 

determination of how many pounds of rice is comparable to a coat when the amount of labor 

in them is compared. Relating a coat to three pounds of rice does not allow for an exchange 

or real measure of comparison to be made. Value must be introduced into the relation. 

Hans: Where you say “comparing commodities to each other as commodities,” Marx would say “comparing commodities 

to each other as use-values.” Use-values are important to the commodity owners but they cannot establish 

a social relation for the reasons you give. 

Next Message by Chris is [1496]. 

Question 382 is 182 in 1995WI, 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, and 

368 in 2011fa: 

Question 382 Why is the occasional exchange of surplus products between tribes not an 

exchange of “commodities” but one of “products”?


[427] JEP: Purpose of Production. The reason that the occasional exchange of surplus 

products are referred to as an exchange of “products” rather than an exchange of “commodities” 

is because of the original purpose of production. The tribe had the intention of using 

the products for themselves throughout the production process, however, once the tribe’s 

needs had been satisfied they exchanged the excess products. A commodity, by definition, 

is anything produced for sale or exchange in the market. This purpose of use, rather than 

exchange, throughout the production process is the reason the tribe’s surplus products are 

referred to as products rather than commodities. 

Message [427] referenced by [513]. Next Message by JEP is [556]. 

[513] It: Reply to JEP. i would agree completely with JEP [427] on the point that things 

that are made to be used and not to be exchanged, like when somebody grows their own 

private garden and uses the produce for themselves. This is not a commodity. It is a product, 

so if the owner of the garden exchanges some extra beets for his or her neighbor’s extra 

carrots. they are exchanging products and not commodities. 

Hans: Good contemporary example. 

Next Message by It is [559]. 

[1271] Smalls: The occasional exchange of surplus products between tribes is not an 

exchange of commodities due to the initial intentions of the tribe. The tribe is not seeking 

to produce commodities for exchange, but rather to produce products which meet their own 

needs. Once their needs are met, tribes are willing to exchange any surplus with neighboring 

tribes. Often the products produced by the tribe are not exchanged beyond the tribe at all.


The intention of production is never to produce commodities for exchange. A commodity is 

always produced with the intent of exchanging it for other commodities. 

Next Message by Smalls is [1272]. 

[1279] Shickadance: graded A A commodity is anything that is created with the intent 

of being exchanged on the market. Therefore, when a group creates something with no 

intention of using that particular creation other than to make it available to interested traders 

for barter or exchange, the good is traded as a commodity. However, when a group is satisfied 

by the commodities and there are “leftovers” which are not needed, these are exchanged as 

products. So when something is created for the specific use of the tribe who created it (the 

tribe has a specific use-value in mind for the creation during its construction) and then it 

is traded due to there being an unnecessary amount of surplus, this good is exchanged as a 

product rather than a commodity. 

Next Message by Shickadance is [1280]. 

[1283] Littlerock: graded A Tribes Producing Commodities. A commodity is something 

that is produced not for the immediate consumption of the producer, but rather for 

exchange on the market. If something is produced for the intent of being consumed directly 

by the producer, then it is a product, not a commodity. Tribes produced for their own consumption, 

not originally for sale on the market. It is only happenstance that some of those 

products became surplus products and were available to be traded between tribes. 

Next Message by Littlerock is [1284].


[1376] Ruffian: An exchange within a tribe would be referred to as an exchange of 

“products” and not an exchange of “commodities” because of the tribe’s original intended 

purpose of those goods. The tribe created those products only to satisfy the immediate 

needs of the tribe. If such a case were to arise where they had left over supplies due to 

overproduction and could never use said products they would then exchange the products to 

retain some use. Commodities by definition are created only with the intent to be traded or 

sold at market. However this is not the case when the produced items were strictly created 

for use within the tribe and not for trade. Having been created only to be consumed and not 

sold they cannot be considered commodities. 

Next Message by Ruffian is [1378]. 

[1383] ZachS: graded B+ In order for surplus products to be exchanged as commodities 

they would have to be sold using money and then with that money the alternate commodity 

could be purchased (C-M-C). And since these are surplus products the value of the product 

has become less valuable. 

Hans: In an exchange of surplus-products between tribes, value (labor-time) is probably not very important. Value 

is therefore not diminished but it is not yet relevant. 

Next Message by ZachS is [1384]. 

Exam Question 397 is 191 in 1995WI, 202 in 1996sp, 217 in 1997WI, 216 in 1997ut, 226 

in 1998WI, 236 in 1999SP, 280 in 2002fa, 294 in 2003fa, 331 in 2004fa, 346 in 2007SP, 

356 in 2008SP, 371 in 2009fa, 401 in 2010fa, and 383 in 2011fa:


Exam Question 397 Marx writes: “The exchange process gives the commodity which it 

has designated as money not its value, but its specific form of value.” Which form of value 

does Marx mean here? Why does Marx call this form the specific form of value of the money 

commodity? (Assume we are under the gold standard.) 

[1081] Shelly: graded A Specific Form of Value. The form of value Marx is referring to 

is form as the general equivalent. He calls it the “specific form of value” because gold is the 

commodity which everyone has agreed upon to be used as the general equivalent. 

Ula: Gold, like all other commodities in the market, has value because of the labor used to produce it. So, the 

exchange process does not give gold its value, value already exists because of the production process. It does, 

however, give gold a “specific form of value” because of its designation as the money commodity. It is the general 

equivalent, meaning all other commodities express their exchange-value in quantities of gold. It is universally 

agreed upon; it is the only commodity on the market with this “specific” designation. Every commodity can be 

exchanged for gold. 

Next Message by Shelly is [1085]. 

[1088] Jag: The form of value. The form of value which Marx means here is money 

being used as the general equivalent. Assuming we are under the gold standard, Marx calls 

this the specific form of value because nothing else gets its value the same way that gold 

gets its value. 

Hans: Your statement “nothing else gets its value the same way that gold gets its value” is wrong. Marx would 

say: gold gets its value in exactly the same way as all other commodities, through labor necessary for its mining 

and refining. What makes gold special is not that it has value, but it is the form of value, namely, being General 

equivalent.


Next Message by Jag is [1449]. 

[1127] Justin: With his statement Marx means the General Equivalent form of value. 

Marx calls this the specific form of value because the money has its own value as a commodity 

before it becomes money, and it has presumably progressed through the simple and 

expanded forms of value already. So the specific form that it has now as money is the general 

equivalent form. 


[1141] Shelly: graded A The General Equivalent. The form of value as the general 

equivalent. Marx calls this form the “specific form” because it is the commodity everyone 

had decided on as the general equivalent in which to represent value. 


[1150] Curtis: graded A– The money commodity. The exchange process gives the 

money commodity the general equivalent form of value, in which it can be related to the 

universe of commodities. This is the “specific” form of value for the money commodity because 

all further exchanges from the perspective of the money commodity are made treating 

the money commodity as the general equivalent form of value. 

Hans: Assuming gold is the money commodity, then “general equivalent” is the specific value form of gold, because 

only gold is in this value form. All other commodities are in a different value, namely, the general relative 

value form which is also called the price form of the commodity. 

Next Message by Curtis is [1156].


[1153] Diego: graded A– The exchange process designates money as the ‘general equivalent.’ 

This is a specific form of value such that all commodities can have their value (including 

labor) represented in the money form, which is the price. This form is called the ‘form 

of value of the money commodity’ as it is a representation of the labor value inherent in all 

commodities. 

Next Message by Diego is [1154]. 

[1192] EricR: Marx means the form of value of the money commodity. 

Gold at this state was considered money commodity because it had two attributes. 

1.-It showed its basic value-form of a commodity 

2.-It goes through circulation-form of money 

These both make up gold as “Universal Money” 


[1206] RedRyder: The exchange process gives money its specific form of value. This 

value is projected upon money by its universal acceptance as money. Thus, its value is 

derived almost entirely from its exchange. This is what Marx meant by specific form of 

value. 

Hans: No, this is not what Marx meant. He had a reason for calling it “form of value” instead of “value.” 

Next Message by RedRyder is [1298].


[1226] Carol: Here Marx is talking about money as a value in itself because it represents 

the equivalent of the product. 


[1317] AJH: Specific form of value of the money commodity. Under the gold standard 

money represents the value of producing gold has and because the commodity is a representative 

of the value of gold, it is called the specific form of value of the money commodity. 

Hans: In fact, money was either gold itself (gold coins) or it represented gold and the owner was entitled to have 

it exchanged for gold at a fixed rate if he or she wanted. 


[1334] KapitalSB: graded B– The form value means here that without the exchange process 

value cannot be given money form. 

Hans: Marx does not talk here about ordinary commodities at all but only about the money commodity, and he 

distinguishes its value from its value form. 


[1473] Skylerp: Marx is speaking of the general equivalent when he refers to the specific 

form of value. He calls it the general equivalent because he is referring to gold as the standard 

use or form of value for the money commodity. Just like other productions, gold has to be 

mined and refined which creates value due to labor. This is why Marx calls it a specific form 

of value. 

Hans: “Form of value” for Marx is not one of the forms which a valuable thing can take, but it is a social relation, 

attached to the commodity as if it were a physical property of the commodity, in which the value of the commodity 

becomes visible and actionable. A better translation is “value form of the commodity.” Ordinary commodities


are in the “relative value form,” namely, their value becomes visible and actionable in their price, and the money 

commodity is in the “equivalent form,” its value becomes visible and actionable in its ability to purchase all other 

commodities. 


[1494] Chris: Marx means money’s form of value is of exchange—gold. Money in the 

form of gold gives it the form of value. Money’s value is in the gold and the gold can be 

exchanged for other commodities. 


[1502] Bear: graded C– This relates to the exchange value of gold etc. The gold itself may 

be used to make jewelry, conduct electricity, for use in chemical processes. These would be 

its use values, the “form” referred to here is the exchange value of gold. The weight of gold 

is translated into a monetary value as in 5 apples per 1/4 oz. of gold. The exchange rate 

is set not according to the use value of the gold but by what it can be traded for in specific 

amounts. 

Hans: Saying “the exchange rate of gold is set by what it can be traded for” amounts to saying “the exchange rate 

of gold is set by the exchange rate of gold.” 

Next Message by Bear is [1503]. 

Question 413 is 234 in 1997sp, 226 in 1997ut, 236 in 1998WI, 291 in 2002fa, 305 in 

2003fa, 336 in 2005fa, 367 in 2008fa, 382 in 2009fa, 412 in 2010fa, and 398 in 2011fa: 

Question 413 Why this detour over gold, why not measure value directly by labor-time?


[566] JEP: Gold as Labor-time. According to Marx in 188:3, gold, or money, is the 

necessary form of appearance of the immanent measure of value of the commodities, namely 

labor-time. Marx states earlier in 188:3 that the commodities cannot be exchanged because 

they are offered for the same amount of money, however the opposite is true. Money is a 

common representation of labor-time for commodities, ensuring that two commodities being 

offered for the same amount of money have the same immanent value or equal amounts of 

labor invested in them. Gold, or money, is a commodity used to provide an exterior measure 

that is driven by an internal force, labor-time. 

Hans: Your second sentence misreads what Marx says at the beginning of 188:3. “Commensurable” is not the 

same as “exchangeable.” Other than this, your submission reiterates that there is a detour but does not enlighten the 

reader why this detour is necessary. 

Next Message by JEP is [831]. 

[787] AbeFroman: Why Not Measure Value Directly by Labor-Time? According to 

Marx, in a capitalist society, the value of a commodity is equal to the amount of labor time 

that has been used in its production. However, Marx is not talking about concrete labor time 

(i.e., total man-hours), he is talking about abstract labor, the amount of socially-necessary 

labor embodied in the product. 

Marx describes this labor time as follows: “The 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” (Hans Annotations, p. 57).


Therefore, to Marx, the commodity has value because it represents some portion of society’s 

total pool of labor-power. Other factors besides how much of an individual’s time he 

has spent on production play a role in determining how much of this pool was created by 

the individual (e.g., labor intensity, technology, etc.). This is much more difficult to quantify 

than simply checking a time-card or watching somebody work. Instead value must be 

derived socially, through the exchange process. 

One can not directly measure value in the market by labor-time because the abstract 

labor time that makes-up a commodity’s value is only visible when compared with other 

commodities. Trying to measure value directly in labor would be putting the cart before the 

horse. 

Next Message by AbeFroman is [792]. 

[1134] Snowball: graded A Gold and Labor. The question is, why gold? Why not labortime? 

The reason is that labor-time is subjective and removes the focus off demand and onto 

the labor content of commodities. Producers would simply focus on producing products that 

would be considered rich in labor-time despite what the market demanded. 

For example, let’s suppose the creation of a marble sculpture takes significant labor time. 

A producer brings it to market and is paid handsomely in “labor money” which he is able 

to use to purchase other things he needs. Other producers will catch on, meaning less necessities 

will be available at the market while the market overflows with unneeded marble


sculptures. This would drive people to a black market and create an incentive to only bring 

junk to market. 

Instead, we detour to gold, which has defined quantitative and qualitative work that is 

mutually agreed upon. Gold, then, becomes a standard of reference for value. It is the 

general equivalent, what Marx calls the “specific equivalent commodity.” This is why the 

detour to gold is essential. 

Next Message by Snowball is [1135]. 

[1182] Rowlsroyce: A value would not be purely measured in labor-time because let’s 

say somebody takes a long time on purpose to complete a job, it would be an unjust value 

given to the commodity. By having the detour of gold, it gives the commodity somewhat a 

just value, it makes you want to make the item as efficiently as possible too make more gold. 

Next Message by Rowlsroyce is [1207]. 

[1189] Neela: graded B “Since all commodities measure their exchange-values in gold, in 

the proportion, in which a given amount of gold and a given amount of commodity contain 

equal amounts of labor-time, gold becomes the measure of value.” (253-254, Annotations) 

Our society was built on the system described in this quote. We have structured our marketplaces 

to accommodate to this type of system. We use gold to provide commodities with a 

way in which they can express their values, and a way in which they can be equally comparable 

in relation to each other or on the same “scale”. Gold and money cannot represent 

labor-time, because the products of labor must take the form of commodities such as paper


money. In taking the form of commodities, they are distinguishing that they are commodity 

and that they are a money commodity as well. By distinguishing the differences of value 

and prices, the producers in a capitalist society can use them as determinants to adapt their 

production. This allows the producers to know what to produce. As Hans said in Fall 2010 

[2010fa:511] Hans: The reason why people don’t write the labor content on their prices is 

that prices must necessarily differ from labor content, in order to motivate the producers to 

adjust their production to demand. 

Hans: You seem to imply that the US is on the gold standard today, and you call paper money a “commodity.” This 

is wrong. Marx lived under a monetary system that was different than ours. Nevertheless, the basic principles he 

drew from his analysis are still valid today, even if the form it takes today is wrong. 

Next Message by Neela is [1250]. 

[1196] Leont: Gold gives the means to have a universal accepted form of payment. Every 

commodity is produced with its respected labor-time but the exchange of commodities between 

buyer and seller becomes complicated if the buyer doesn’t have an equal commodity 

to trade. Gold gives the means to set a value that can be agreed upon, then exchanged as 

money to increase the circulation of commodities. Labor-time is also difficult to quantify if 

you are not familiar with its process of production. 

Hans: According to Marx, the first function of money is not means of payment but measure of value. For you, the 

first function of money is means of payment, and the issue of measure of value seems irrelevant because you say 

that the value “can be agreed upon.” 

Next Message by Leont is [1197].


[1326] JEP: “Since all commodities measure their exchange-values in gold, in the proportion, 

in which a given amount of gold and a given amount of commodity contain equal 

amounts of labor-time, gold becomes the measure of value” (pg. 253-254). In our current 

marketplace, the first function of gold is to provide the world of commodities with a 

material for which the commodities can express their value with a common denomination, 

qualitatively equal and quantitatively comparable (pg. 254). Just as stated in the annotations 

we have created a marketplace in which we use money as a measure of value to compare 

commodities to one another. Due to this structure in the marketplace, gold cannot represent 

labor-time because the commodity produced through labor must take the form of a commodity 

such as paper money, in Marx’s time (today it represents credit). This helps to establish 

a difference in value and price, motivating producers in a capitalistic society to adjust their 

production towards the market demand. 


[1340] TMM: Marx begins to take a detour over gold because gold (money) he believes 

that is the “general equivalent,” gold could be thought of as a form of money, or the moneyform 

of value. Gold or the general equivalent can be used to show a measure of value of 

commodities from the exchange of commodities of equal labor content. Marx believes that 

when two commodities are up for sale at the same amount of money, this is because they 

have the same amount of labor embodied these two particular commodities. This is because 

in terms of labor value, commodities tend to become homogenous, the commodities can then 

be looked at by another form of measure to value the commodity, that being money. As a


side note, money in Marx’s time represented gold, however today money represents credit. 

Marx stated that labor embodied in the commodities is shown in the form of money or gold. 

As Hans says in [2010fa:518] and [2010fa:511], in a capitalist system, the differences 

between value and prices are necessary signals to the producers to adjust their production. 

So the detour over gold is needed because production is private. Chudak in [1998WI:212] 

explains this clearly by saying how Marx described the idea of “labor money” in a society 

founded on the production of commodities as “shallow utopianism.” Where we would have 

to be very naïve to think that we could all “just get along” where we measure values directly 

by labor time. Today the inevitable change and innovation in society would make it very difficult 

to measure values accurately. Marx believes that all commodities as values are simply 

“objectified human labor, and are therefore commensurable,” which means this allows their 

values to be measured in a standard commodity. The standard means of measurement would 

turn the commodity into the common measure of values, that common measure of values 

would be “money” (i.e. the general equivalent). In summary, essentially all commodities as 

values are objectified human labor. Objectified human labor can be measured by the same 

specific commodity, where if society choose money then (represented gold during Marx’s 

time) or if society chose money (where today it represents credit), they become the common 

measure of value and thus makes it easier to exchange these commodities with a common 

standard measure of value. 

Next Message by TMM is [1341].


[1354] Glister: In a capitalist society Marx measures value by the amount of labor time 

invested in the commodity. Marx does not only talk about labor time he also talks about 

abstract labor which is the time embodied in the commodity. Abstract labor is very hard to 

measure, according to Marx “The 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” using this method is very hard to account for all the 

time put into the commodity. The capitalist will put a price amount on the commodity and 

not relate it to labor so he can exploit his labor. That is why we use gold as a detour and not 

use labor time to measure value 

Message [1354] referenced by [1553]. Next Message by Glister is [1355]. 

[1374] AR: graded C Why this detour over gold, why not measure value directly by 

labor-time? Measuring value directly by labor time would not accurately show what is 

put in the product. Hans tells us for simplicity reasons “gold is the money-commodity, 

money commodity became the measure of value.” The “measure of value” (gold) is the 

means of money that has equal amounts of labor value in the exchanged commodity. For 

Marx each must be “qualitatively equal and quantitatively comparable.” Labor time does not 

accurately measure value. According to Hans it is just the “driving force, generating the 

exterior measure, money.” 

Hans: Even if it were possible to accurately measure the labor-time in a product, exchange ratios cannot be exactly 

equal to labor-time. See [1998WI:227] why not. 

Next Message by AR is [1392].


[1463] AbeFroman: Why Not Measure Value Directly By Labor. Value cannot be 

directly measured in labor-time because the labor that creates value is socially-necessary 

abstract human labor. This is difficult, if not impossible, to measure without putting commodities 

in contrast with one another. It isn’t a simple analysis of how much work was done 

by an individual, but how much of the total labor pool was placed into the commodity. It is 

therefor an opportunity cost. 

Measuring the value of a commodity in gold also allows for a great deal of the exploitation 

that is inherent in capitalism to occur. It could be possible over time to closely estimate the 

abstract labor going into products and pay workers based on this, but that would change the 

relationship capitalists have with workers. For instance, it appears to workers as if they are 

selling labor to capitalists, but, in fact, they are selling their ability to do labor (labor-power). 

This is what allows capitalists to gain profit. A direct analysis by workers of this over time 

would make this relationship difficult to maintain and would most likely make capitalism 

unpalatable to most workers. 


[1553] Hans: The capitalist system confesses that it is exploiting the worker. Glister’s 

exam resubmission [1354] seems to define exploitation as the difference between what the 

worker is getting in capitalism and what he should get according to Marx’s way of measuring 

value. This is a misunderstanding of Marx, and I am sending my response to the


list because this misunderstanding is common, not only in this class but in today’s Marx 

reception generally. 

Marx’s theory of capitalism is not trying to set up a parallel fairer system of measurement, 

but it is trying to understand the system of measurement the capitalist system itself uses. 

This theory has the result that by capitalism’s own standards, the worker is not getting an 

equivalent of the value he produces, but only the value of his labor-power. This is not the 

application of a parallel measuring system, but value is measured in exactly the same way 

the system itself measures value, by the same laws which underlie competitive marketcomes. 

There are good reasons to use the word “exploitation” or “unpaid labor” for the difference 

between the value created by the worker’s labor and the value of the worker’s labor-power. 

This exploitation can be defined within the capitalist system. Marx so-to-say is showing that 

capitalism confesses the exploitation of the worker. This exploitation is not even a violation 

of the laws of value guiding capitalist market interactions, but it is in full compliance with 

these laws. 

To say it again: if Marx’s theory is correct, then exploitation is an inherent feature of 

the capitalist system itself. It can be defined inside the system, without recourse to some 

observer’s conception of value or fairness. The implication of this theory is therefore not 

that wages should be higher, but that the entire system must be abolished and replaced by 

a different system. Raising wages while maintaining capitalism is analogous to giving the 

slaves better food and more comfortable quarters while maintaining slavery.


Next Message by Hans is [1565]. 

Exam Question 415 is 235 in 1997sp, 237 in 1998WI, 247 in 1999SP, 270 in 2001fa, 307 

in 2003fa, 344 in 2004fa, 338 in 2005fa, 359 in 2007SP, 369 in 2008fa, 414 in 2010fa, 

and 400 in 2011fa: 

Exam Question 415 What is the price of a commodity? Say how it is defined, and say as 

much as you can about it without going into Marx’s theory how its magnitude is determined. 

[1061] Abysmal: (content B form 95%) The price of a commodity is essentially its 

exchange-value, given by its exchange proportions with the money commodity. Price is 

ultimately determined by the amount of abstract labor (value) congealed in a commodity, 

and is therefore determined by the socially necessary labor time it takes to produce a given 

commodity, in relation to the socially necessary labor time it takes to produce the money 

commodity. 

Hans: Your first sentence is an acceptable definition of price. Your second sentence does exactly what the question 

asked you not to do, namely, summarize Marx’s theory about the magnitude of prices. Is there anything else to say 

about prices than this? In [2004fa:436] I wrote: 

In Marx’s theory, both price and exchange-value are expressions of the value, i.e., of the labortime 

in the commodities. But one can say that the exchange-value is a diffuse expression, since 

the value is expressed in the use-values of arbitrary other commodities. The price is a much 

more focused expression, because every commodity expresses its value in the same equivalent. 

By this one equation, the value of these commodities is not only placed in relation with gold, 

but with all other commodities.


In order to get an A in the exam, you have to say at least one thing about the price other than how its magnitude is 

determined. This quote from 2004 is an example of what can be said about prices. 

Next Message by Abysmal is [1142]. 

[1116] KATES: Price and exchange value of a commodity. The price of a commodity 

comes down to the exchange value of the commodity. The exchange value of a commodity 

is the commodity’s ability to be exchanged for another commodity and price is the ability 

for a commodity to be exchanged for money. Marx says “the value of these commodities is 

not only placed in relation with gold, but with all other commodities. Its price is its ability 

to be exchanged for another commodity.” 

Hans: The first sentence of what you present as a Marx quote is not Marx but my formulation in [2004fa:436], and 

the second sentence is probably not Marx either. 

Next Message by KATES is [1117]. 

[1123] GMS: The price of a commodity. The price of a commodity is defined as the 

worth value of something in the terms of money. Money is a measurement of value that 

people put on a commodity. The price comes from the amount of labor that went into the 

commodity. Money is essential for everything that can be exchanged. 

Hans: Wrong definition of money. 

Next Message by GMS is [1124]. 

Question 418 is 309 in 2003fa, 347 in 2004fa, 362 in 2007SP, and 387 in 2009fa: 

Question 418 Compare the Price form with the Simple form of value.


[596] SVN: Money. The simple form of value is the expression of one commodity in the 

form of another. It is represented by the equation x commodity A = y commodity B, or 20 

yards of linen = 1 coat. The simple form represents a barter system in which a commodity 

can be traded for an endless number of other commodities. The upside to this is that the 

possibilities for exchange seem endless. In this context, the equivalent form, linen could be 

exchanged for food, gold, coffee etc. This can backfire if there are too many linen producers 

and the market becomes saturated with linen, thus reducing the need for linen and the 

ability to exchange linen for other goods that the linen producer needs. With time and place 

changing, the ability to exchange linen can fluctuate making it an unpredictable, exhaustive 

bartering process for exchange of goods. 

Hans: Do you mean commodity money can backfire because too much of thhe money commodity is produced? Or 

a general equivalent can backfire because it makes prices dependent on the global economy rather than on a local 

equilibrium? Please explain. 

Whereas with simple form the commodity can express its value in the form of a multitude 

of other commodities, the price form of a commodity can only be expressed in the form of 

a single commodity, and that is money. Or as Kat [2010fa:815] says “Price is just one 

type of exchange-value. Exchange-value is the ability of a commodity to be exchanged for 

another commodity. So price represents the exchange of a commodity for money.” Price is 

the relative form of the value of gold becoming the measurement of value through which all 

commodities can be exchanged.


The problem with the money form is that it conceals the labor that went into the commodity, 

and as Hans says p. 258 Annotations “In this sense, the value is ‘invisible’ to the 

surface agents.” Therefore prices can become incredibly high or low because all that has to 

be present is a price tag on the commodity and no gold present for the price form to have a 

real effect in driving market prices. 

Hans: Gold need not be present when prices are set, but Marx explains in chapter Three section 1 that actual gold 

and its labor content still play a role. You should look this up, it is an interesting story. Nowadays, monetary policy 

is necessary to keep the price level stable. 

Next Message by SVN is [865]. 

[652] Skylerp: Price form/simple form of Value. The simple form of value is the value 

relaiton with one commodity to another. It’s one single equation. Exchanging one commodity 

for another. This simple form of value is “produced” as Marx says through society. It is 

society itself that creates the relation between one commodity to another commodity. Price 

form of a value is now the expanded form of value. It is expressing commodites under the 

same condition. Money can be used if accepted by society as a General equivalent. One 

form of value that all commodities can be exchanged for. Both forms of value show an 

interest in exchange. Money just adds another commodity to the simple form equation. In 

essence price form and simple form are very similar besides money being involved in the 

first. Also money allows society to not have to deal with producing equivalent commodities 

with one another. 

Hans: Wrong definition of Expanded form of value.


The main difference between Simple form and Money form is not given in your answer. 

Even if money “conceals the labor” as SVN says in [569], Marx still maintains that exchange ratios are determined 

by labor ratios. 


[697] Basil: The Evolving Forms of Value. The Price Form of Value and the Simple 

Form of Value are different, but related. As Marx explains in the first chapter of Capital, 

the expression of Value by the commodity progresses through different stages, or forms, of 

Value. The Value of a commodity is initially expressed in the Simple Form through its interaction 

with just one other commodity. This expression took place through the relative form 

that each commodity shared, their Exchange-value. Beyond the Simple Form, we see the expression 

of Value in the Expanded Form through the commodity’s interaction with all other 

commodities. Furthermore, as market interactions progress, one commodity will evolve into 

the General Equivalent Form, which then expresses the Value of all commodities. And from 

the General Equivalent Form evolves the Money Form when one the General Equivalent 

Form becomes universally associated with a specific use-value. Marx uses the example of 

gold as society’s General Equivalent, or Money Form of Value, and gold therefore becomes 

the measure of values for all commodities. But with a single commodity as a measure of 

value, that in turn acts back on the relative form, or the exchange-value. With gold as the 

Money Form, the exchange-value of gold becomes its price. 

Whereas Marx’s previous analogy was to say 20 yards of linen = 1 coat, a fitting adjustment 

would be to say that 20 yards of linen = $10 (or any arbitrary price), and that 1 coat =


$10 (the same price). Therefore, the relationship that the linen or the coat has with money 

has become a socially valid expression of Value in the Simple Form—the Value of linen, or 

Value of coat, can be completely expressed through their relative value with money. This 

relative form, or Exchange-value, is the price. So, in comparing the Price Form of Value 

with the Simple Form of Value, we can say that in the Simple Form, Value is expressed 

relatively through Exchange-value. And for the Money Form, Value is expressed relatively 

through the Price. So, whereas the expression of value of a single commodity in relation to 

money now looks like the Simple Form, the expression of the value of money with all other 

commodities looks like the Expanded Form. And for each expression of value, Price can be 

equated to the Exchange-value of commodities in relation to money as if expressed in the 

Simple Form. 

Next Message by Basil is [818]. 

[1519] MKW: price form vs simple form. Simple form of value is the expression of one 

commodity in terms of another. An economy based on a barter system would employ the 

simple form of value. A price form of value is the expression of the commodity in terms 

of a single commodity, in most societies the gold standard, which all other commodities 

can be expressed in a socially valid manner, eliminating the need to equate all the different 

commodities one to another. This is a great benefit to societies that employ the price value 

money and enables exchangeability and simplifies what could be a near inscrutably complicated 

barter system, eg. you instruct my offspring in the knowledge of Marx and I will 

give you a mortgage. One can only imagine the social connections necessary in an economy


and society as complex as ours needed to acquire the simplest necessities of life if only the 

simple form of value was employed! 

Hans: This uniform expression of value in one commodity, gold, not only facilitates exchange but also gives 

producers and consumers information about what to produce and what to buy. 


Question 423 is 407 in 2011fa: 

Question 423 Imagine you were studying Marxism together with a friend, and the friend 

said to you: Doesn’t the labor theory of value imply that people should write the labor 

content of their commodities on the price signs instead of amount of money? How would 

you answer your friend? 

[779] TMM: Friends and The LTV. If I were studying Marxism together with a friend 

and my friend believed that the labor theory of value implies that people should write the 

labor content of the commodity on their price tags or signs instead of the amount of money 

I would re-explain Marx’s theory to them. I would say that Marx formed the labor theory 

of value specifically to be able to explain the development of something (that being money) 

and why this developed in a society. Marx believes that on the surface of the economy, 

all commodities are measured by a one-dimensional measuring stick, that being money. 

The surface interactions can only then fit together with the relations of the producers in 

production if production is also governed by a one-dimensional guideline, which is abstract 

human labor. This is why Marx begins chapter 1 in Capital with the commodity; the analysis


of the commodity leads us to value, where capitalist profit is value produced by worker from 

excess profit off their wages. A commodity is something that is produced for exchange or 

sale where it doesn’t require the existence of money, but Marx goes on to say that money 

will ultimately have to be developed in a society where many different commodities are 

produced. Marx explains that the use-value of a commodity comes from two sources, that 

being not only labor but also nature. Value is what brings commodities to the market and 

value is ultimately created by laborl As Hans says, the labor inside the commodity is invisible 

and exchange allows labor to be introduced into social interactions. Hans says on page 259, 

“By their price tags, the commodities tell the world what they are worth (or at least what 

the owner thinks they are worth). This is not merely a theoretical musing but has practical 

implications: the price tag commits the owner to hand the commodity over to anyone who is 

willing to pay the market price.” Marx believes that there should be a system of exchange, 

and the gold does not have to necessarily be present, and in a capitalist society producers 

would want to exploit the excess of their own labor to make a profit, thus a price mark-up 

might be necessary to reflect what the producer thinks the good is worth and to make some 

capital gains of their labor. The labor theory of value simply explains how an economy 

system with money in it should orx will work 

Hans: The “should” in your last sentence is wrong. Marx’s theory is not normative, it is critical. You don’t have a 

specific targeted answer for your friend so you just dump the whole theory on the poor fellow. 

Next Message by TMM is [857].


[789] RSL: If I were studying Marxism with a friend whom understood the labor theory 

of value and they asked if the theory implied that commodities should be labeled with labor 

content as opposed to price, I would disagree. Marx’s labor theory of value is specifically 

a theory determining the value of a commodity; it is not also determining price theory. 

Regardless of whether my friend and I are in agreeance of the accuracy of the labor theory 

of value, I would explain that this theory is stating that the value of a commodity can be 

related to the labor needed to produce or obtain a commodity. The theory is not extending 

itself to state what would also be the most accurate pricing mechanism. 

I would additionally point out that by putting a price tag on a commodity, the labor 

required for the commodity is kept anonymous. As Hans states, “In the negotiations between 

buyer and seller, only the properties of the product itself are discussed; the labor spent by 

the producer is treated as if it was a private affair of the producer (p. 258).” By remaining a 

private affair, the producer can determine a price that they believe the commodity is worth. 

If a tag of the actual labor were put on a commodity, the true value of the commodity is 

being stated, not the value that the commodity producer is willing to accept, as is done with 

a price mechanism. 

Hans: Marx’s labor theory of value does not say what value should be but what they are, i.e., Marx does believe 

that labor values guide actual prices. 

Next Message by RSL is [805]. 

[799] Extraterrestrial: graded A– Price Tag Manipulation. If I was studying Marxism 

with a friend and they said that the labor theory of value requires the amount of labor to be


put on a price tag of a certain commodity, I would first of all tell him that is not the case. DO 

in [2011fa:535] states that, “Though the labor theory implies the fact that the labor content 

of one’s commodity may determine the value of a given commodity, money is a much easier 

way of exchanging commodities.” I agree to a very small extent with DO but disagree for 

the most part. Money is not necessarily an easier way to exchange commodities. It is still 

difficult to value a commodity by putting a number on it. 

Another reason labor content is not put on the price tag is because, in capitalism, labor 

is exploited. If buyers knew how much labor was put into something, employers may start 

needing to pay their employees more. The whole idea here is that labor content itself is not 

written on the price tag but labor content should be included in the price. Often times the 

labor content is not included because that would force (in certain circumstances) a company 

to raise prices because labor content was included in the value. In other circumstances, if 

labor content was reflected in the price tag, prices would need to be dropped. 

After all this discussion it would be very interesting to have a world where labor content 

was actually put onto a price tag. It may be printed in the number of hours it took to produce 

that commodity or how many workers hands it passed through and how many hours 

each worker spent on it. The putting of labor value on a price tag is almost done in some 

cases. Some commodities or products have written on them, “homemade” or “handmade.” 

Handmade or homemade implies more labor time. “Made in China” or “Made in Singapore” 

reflects the fact that workers are exploited.


Next Message by Extraterrestrial is [912]. 

[1407] GTIguy: There are many things wrong with the idea that a producer should write 

the value of their labor content on their commodities instead of the price. The greatest 

problem is the fact that it would devalue the producer’s labor. Why would a consumer 

willingly pay more for a product if they know that the labor input value is less than the 

sale value? The labor value of the producer is only a small portion of the overall price of 

the commodity. The greater, and arguably more important, portion of the price is the use 

value of the commodity to the consumer. Let’s suppose that a commodity is sold at a regular 

market value of $50 but only requires $10 of labor to produce. If the producer were to 

advertise that the labor value of the product on the price tag the consumer would see this and 

not be willing to pay the full asking price. 

Hans: If the labor theory of value does not hold, then there is of course no reason to label the commodities with 

their labor content. 

Next Message by GTIguy is [1411]. 

[1417] Tiburon: I would tell my friend that he has a valid point because the value of 

commodities represents the human labor used to produce the commodity. Nevertheless, this 

value is invisible to the economy because it is inside of the commodity. The guardian of the 

commodities needs to use a price tag with money in it that would allow the buyer to know 

what the commodity is worth according to the seller. 

Hans: You had “inside of the economy,” I changed it into “inside of the commodity,” because I think this was a 

writing error. You are right that value (in Marx’s theory) is invisible and inside of the commodity. But Marx also


says that the exchange relations on the market are signs pointing to these invisible values. I.e., these exchange 

relations do not indicate “what the commodity is worth according to the seller,” as you write, but they are, without 

buyer and seller necessarily being aware of it, expressions of this invisible value. 

Next Message by Tiburon is [1422]. 

Question 435 is 430 in 2010fa and 417 in 2011fa: 

Question 435 Why is it not a defect but a sign that the price form is “admirably” adapted to 

commodity production, as the Moore-Aveling translation says, that prices can deviate from 

values due to demand and supply? 

[726] Reeree: Supply and Demand. Price form is admirably adapted to commodity 

production in that prices can deviate from values due to supply and demand. As we have 

learned, value is the congealed abstract labor that resides in a commodity that helps it to 

be exchanged in the market place, whereas price is expressed in the exchange-value of two 

commodities. Hans states in the annotation that “price is the exterior expression of the 

immanent value, and this exterior expression is open to other influences as well.” The other 

influence can take place by how many individuals will desire a certain commodity and if 

there is enough of it being produced to meet demand. The relationship of supply and demand 

will take effect, and price will be the determining factor over the value of the commodity. 

Hans: You are making a too big rift between value and price. In Marx’s theory, price is the expression of value, i.e., 

prices are proportional to labor content. Some Marxists say that values are the “centers of gravitation” of prices, or 

prices “rotate around” value. I.e., there is always a discrepancy, but values are attractors of prices. There must be


this discrepancy because production is private and the deviations of prices from values motivate the producers to 

adjust supply to demand. 

Next Message by Reeree is [855]. 

[1131] Pepe: graded A Prices can deviate from their actual values as demand grows or 

lessens, or likewise supply grows or lessens. Price form is adapted to commodity production 

because it responds accordingly to these factors. Increase in demand will drive prices up, 

and supply will be increased eventually to respond to demand, bringing the price factor back 

to what neo-classical economists would call equilibrium. This movement in price is not a 

defect, it is adaptable to market forces. 

Next Message by Pepe is [1132]. 

[1216] Stig: The English word ‘admirable’ is synonymous with excellence; it is something 

of high value. But valuable for who? 

Marx states on p. 291 “Supply and demand regulate nothing but the temporary fluctuations 

of market prices. They will explain to you why the market price of a commodity rises 

above or sinks below its value, but they can never account for that value itself.” Marx notes 

that prices can be attached to almost anything, they therefore do not necessarily express the 

value of the commodity but rather the prices facilitate a claim to its ownership or use. 

The variability of price due to supply and demand often means that the capitalist can gain 

even more from the sale of commodities than by exploiting the laborer alone. One example 

could be the purchasing of the last seat on an airline flight to Chicago from Salt Lake versus


a ticket purchased several months in advance, the price is often two or three times more the 

price of purchasing a ticket with more advanced notice; yet the value of the two tickets is 

the same. This variability of price allows for more efficient selection of what commodities 

to produce. If the capitalist noticed that there was higher demand to fly to Chicago than he 

had supply of seats then he would add flights to Chicago. This is not reflected in value and 

therefore it is price which is ‘admirably’ suited to commodity production 

It is therefore not a defect of capitalism but shows one of its greatest strengths. And in 

my opinion this ability to adapt is one of the major reasons capitalism has survived so far. 

Next Message by Stig is [1296]. 

[1243] KATES: There are a couple of reasons why prices deviate from values due to 

demand and supply. Price and value are not the same thing. Price interacts with commodities 

and supply and demand can be accommodated by price easier than by change in actual value. 

Depending on how much of a product is produced, supply and how much of a product 

is needed, demand these variables help to determine price. In [501] Hans discusses the 

impossibility of labor prices and asks us to imagine what would happen if people did write 

labor content on price sings. People do not disclose labor content on their price sings because 

prices differ from labor content and producers become motivated to adjust their production 

levels to meet the demand of a commodity. 

Hans: Although prices cannot be identical to labor values, in Marx’s theory labor values are still the background 

influence determining prices. Your answer does not see this. 

Next Message by KATES is [1244].


Exam Question 436 is 322 in 2003fa, 360 in 2004fa, 353 in 2005fa, 375 in 2007SP, 386 

in 2008fa, 431 in 2010fa, and 418 in 2011fa: 

Exam Question 436 Which two aspects of the function of money as a measure of value first 

look like flaws but on a closer look turn out to be necessary? 

[1108] Gladwell: graded A+ Changing Prices and Gold Devaluation. The first flaw 

comes from the fact that prices do not always reflect the value of the commodity [2005fa:1376]. 

Although value may be constant, prices can fluctuate depending on supply and demand. 

This, however, is necessary because it signals to the producers to supply more, or less. 

When price is greater than value, producers produce more. The opposite holds true, as well. 

The second flaw is that increases in technology causes gold (currency at that time) to 

decrease in value over time [2010fa:817]. As technology increases, more and more gold 

can be mined, decreasing the value of gold. This effect, however, allows prices to be more 

constant because technology as a whole, not just in gold, increases as well. 

Hans: Correct answer and good and clear explanations, but your cross references to not point to the most enlightening 

answers in the archives. 

Message [1108] referenced by [1198]. Next Message by Gladwell is [1201]. 

[1136] Snowball: graded B– Necessary Flaws. The two aspects that appear to be flaws 

are the constant fluctuation of the value of money and the constant fluctuation of the price


of commodities. These flaws are necessary because they consider the lowering cost of production. 

For money, such as gold, this could mean more efficient mining. For commodities, 

it could mean technical advancement. 


[1138] Basil: Deceiving Aspects of the Function of Money. The two aspects of the 

function of money as a measure of value that appear flawed are variability in the value 

of gold, and the disparities or deviations in price from the actual value of a commodity. 

These seem like they would undermine money as a measure of value, but they are actually 

necessary to adjust for changes in the production productivity of commodities as well as 

variable extraction productivity for gold. These price disparities tell producers how to adjust 

their production schedules to demand. 

Hans: The variability in the price of gold still has another advantage which you don’t mention here. 


[1180] Neela: graded A The two aspects of the function of money as a measure of value 

that first look like flaws but on a closer look turn out to be necessary are the variability in the 

value of gold as money and the differences in commodities’ prices from their value. 


[1198] Leont: The first flaw comes from the fact that prices do not always reflect the 

value of the commodity. Value may be constant, prices can fluctuate depending on supply 

and demand. This is necessary because it signals to the producers to supply more, or less. 

When price is greater than value, producers produce more.


The second flaw is that increases in technology causes gold to decrease in value over 

time. As technology increases, more and more gold can be mined, decreasing the value of 

gold. Gladwell [1108] 

Hans: Is there a good side to this second flaw? 

Next Message by Leont is [1199]. 

[1204] Gladwell: graded A The first aspect of the function of money is that, at the time, 

gold was used for money and increases in technology allowed for the mining of gold to 

increase, devaluing the currency. This was necessary, however, because increases in technology 

is widespread so that the devaluation actually makes it more stable. 

The second aspect is that supply and demand make prices fluctuate. This is necessary, 

however, because prices signal to producers to produce more or less. If the price is greater 

than the labor value, producers will produce more. If it is less, producers will produce less. 


[1207] Rowlsroyce: 1. Money or cash is more valuable than having capital or a commodity. 

It gives you more freedom, or can give you more use-value, so you can decide what to 

with it. 

2. Money’s exchange-value can vary depending on surplus. If there is too much circulating, 

or in production it can lose value. But at the same time it can be a strength on the 

opposite spectrum and be of more value. 

Next Message by Rowlsroyce is [1208].


[1230] AndyUte: graded C Firstly, one aspect of the function of money that initially looks 

like a flaw is the fact that money is the measure of value rather than labor. Secondly, another 

necessary aspect that seems like a flaw is the fact that the general form of circulation, or the 

general equivalence was gold. 

Next Message by AndyUte is [1231]. 

[1277] Bimmer: graded D The two aspects of the function of money as a measure of 

value that look like flaws, are the store of value and the measure of value. One aspect if for 

example in today’s world we use paper and coins to buy and sell goods and services. Yet, if 

I find a gold coin, since that gold coin is still viewed as money since money is anything that 

is valued by (gold, silver, etc) what a person wants. That gold coin that I found regardless 

of how old it is, will still be able to be used to buy and sell. As long as the item I have is 

determined to have value, no matter what, it will be accepted. The second aspect, is measure 

that value, today we measure value based upon the value denominated on currency. If I use 

the gold coin, it can be weighted to determine a value in today’s world and it will ultimately 

be able to be used. 

Hans: “Store of value” and “measure of value” are not the two aspects that look like flaws. 

At Marx’s time, an antique gold coin could indeed have been used as money: its owner could have, if he would 

have been stupid enough to do so, taken it to the mint where it would have been melted down and converted into 

British pound coins called “guineas.” But this would have been a stupid move; almost certainly the value would 

have been higher had the owner sold this antique gold coin as an antique.


Today we are no longer on the gold standard. The value of the dollar is no longer tied to the value of gold, and 

it is no longer possible to take gold to the mint and have it directly converted into money. Today you have to sell 

gold like any other precious metal in order to convert it into money, i.e., gold is a commodity, it is not money. 

If you are in the US and find an antique gold dollar, you could use it to buy and sell, but this is because these 

gold coins were never invalidated, it is not because gold is money now. You can even buy newly minted gold coins 

from the US mint as collectors items, but you have to pay far more than their nominal value for this, and only a fool 

would use them as money. 

Thirdly, the theory of money and commodities formulated here has nothing to do with Marx. 

Next Message by Bimmer is [1278]. 

[1292] JEP: Two aspects of the function of money as a measure of value that at first look 

like flaws but on a closer look turn out to be necessary are the variation in value of gold as 

money and the difference between the value of a commodity and its price. 

Hans: You had “the differentiation in the value of a commodity and its price,” which means something different, 

namely that both value and price take up a whole range of values instead of only one. 


[1342] TMM: The aspects are that money must be necessary and has two conditions in 

the market such as everyone (meaning all producers) must be strangers to one another. Marx 

points out that gold can be referred to as the “general equivalent.” The general equivalent 

being universally accepted as money where in this case gold could be seen as the general 

equivalent as a measure of value. The flawed outlook that turns out to be necessary is how 

specie money must and should exist in a market. Money comes embodied with three main 

functions by Marx, a measure of value, a means of circulations as well as the function of


money. It seems that it is necessary to have circulation in conjunction with money, however 

once it hits circulation money it becomes valued less and less with more circulation that is 

undertaken. 

Next Message by TMM is [1343]. 

[1356] Glister: Money, like gold will fluctuate in value over a period of time making it 

necessary. Money is a way to put a price on a commodity and not its labor time. 

Next Message by Glister is [1357]. 

[1360] Nunu: Two necessary flaws in the functions of money. One flaw is that the 

price of the commodity does not always reflect its true value. There are outside forces which 

influence fluctuations in price. This ‘flaw’ however is necessary because it indicated to the 

producer to increase or decrease production. An increase in the price of a commodity would 

likely be followed by an increase in production of that commodity and vice versa. The second 

apparent flaw, at the time of the gold standard, is that technological advancement would 

increase the supply of gold which in turn would decrease its value. However, technological 

advancements are not limited to gold production. Technology usually advances across the 

board, or at lesast in many more areas than gold alone. 

Hans: Technical innovation decreases the value of gold because less labor is needed to produce gold. This usually 

leads to increases in supply of gold, but the increases in supply follow from the fall in value, they are not the reason 

for the fall in value. 

Next Message by Nunu is [1361].


[1404] AR: content D form 90% Which two aspects of the funtion of money as a measure 

of value first look like flaws but on a closer look turn out to be necessary? Two 

aspects of the function of money as a measure of value that look like flaws but on a closer 

look turn out to be necessary are; first, prices that can change or money as a measure of value 

and second, as technology increase the value of money will also decrease. First, the price is 

the “form of its values” and can change. Price is just the “exterior expression” according to 

Marx. This change can look like a flaw but is necessary for private commodity production to 

satisfy high consumer demand. Marx is stated by Hans saying that “the discrepancy between 

value and price is not a defect but a necessity for private commodity production.” Second, 

as efficiency improves due to improvements in technology. One’s own personal labor value 

can decline looking like a flaw but production improves and hopefully making more jobs. A 

good example of this is the dot com boom. 

Hans: You are not allowed to rewrite the designated exam question. YOur grade is for the in-class answer. 

Next Message by AR is [1406]. 

[1465] AbeFroman: Flaws with Money as a Measure of Value. Gold production can 

be affected by increases in productivity and gold will therefore become less valuable over 

time. However, this is true of other commodities as well and therefore helps to balance the 

market. 

Hans: It helps keeps prices stable (not by balancing the market). “Balancing the market has to do with the second 

“flaw” which you are not mentioning. 

Next Message by AbeFroman is [1466].


Question 445 is 389 in 2007fa, 394 in 2008SP, 410 in 2009fa, and 427 in 2011fa: 

Question 445 Which “contradictory and mutually exclusive relationships” 198:2 are, according 

to Marx’s analysis, contained in the process of exchanging commodities? 

[825] Skylerp: Process of Exchanging Commodities. In the process of exchanging, each 

barter faces a contradictory and mutually exclusive relationship. When looking to exchange 

one commodity for another each barter transaction wants to get the value they think their 

commodity holds as well as exchanging it for another commodity that will provide their 

desired use-value. In the same idea the barter wants to get “X” amount of value for his 

commodity and also receive a different commodity for a “great deal.” If every barter thinks 

this way, it makes it very difficult for exchanges to even occur. If the transaction is separated 

into two parts, sale and purchase then the contradiciton is transformed and exchanges can 

occur more often. This is also possible when money is brought into the equation. Mhurst 

[2009fa:607] explains very well the mutually exclusive relationship between buyer and seller 

views of their commodities. Marx compares this relationship with an analogy of elliptical 

orbit. In the analogy he explains that material body is constantly falling towards one another, 

but at the same time constantly flying away from it. It is the same way a seller views his/her 

commodity as a value and the commodity they are looking to exchange for as a use-value, 

but never as both. 

Hans: Your sentence “the barter wants to get ‘X’ amount of value for his commodity and also receive a different 

commodity for a ‘great deal’” addresses the value dimension twice and leaves out the use-value dimension. The


party in the barter wants a great deal and at the same time this “great deal” expressed in the use-value of his or her 

choice. 

Before deciding whether Mhurst [2009fa:607] is worth quoting approvingly, you should have looked at my 

response [2009fa:623]. 

Your writing is not up to the standards of a writing requirements class. When you write “each barter transaction” 

you seem to really mean “each individual participating in a barter transaction.” Also the sentence “he explains that 

material body is constantly falling towards one another” needs some corrective surgery. There were also typos in 

your original submission which I corrected for the archives. 


[834] AR: graded C Marx gives a metaphor explaining the contradictory and mutually exclusive 

relationships contained in exchanging commodities. This metaphor is of an elliptical 

orbit that allows contradictions between gravity and inertia. He uses this to represent the 

process of exchanging commodities and how they contain contradictory and mutually exclusive 

relationships. Direct barter is one relationship of contradiction which is the separation 

of the world of commodities into ordinary commodities and money that allows the barter to 

split the sale and purchase. Marx does not believe that “real” contradictions disappear, in 

fact it is practically impossible to entirely resolve contradictions. They just seem to manifest 

themselves in different forms for contradictions. Going back to the elliptical orbit metaphor 

tells us “the contradiction that a material body constantly falls toward another but at the same 

time constantly flies away from it.” This is saying that as a contradiction in the process of 

exchanging commodities is never completely resolved; just as it seems to be fixed another 

contradiction arises.

Hans: You didn’t answer the question. 



[848] Novatore: Marx in the beginning of chapter two tells us how this contradictory and 

mutually exclusive relationship of exchange exists. “All commodities are non-use values for 

their owners and use values for their non-owners.” A person needs their commodity to be 

realized as value in order to exchange it, but in order to find value in something that is a nonuse 

value they also need to be a non-owner of a use-value. To further elaborate, an owner 

must have their commodity socially validated in order for other commodities to satisfy their 

individual wants. Or to use Marx’s metaphor; much like in an elliptical orbit exists because 

of a moving towards and away from an object, an exchange exists because a commodity is 

both a use-value socially and a value individually. 

Hans: The value relation is the social relation, not the use-value relation. 


[1441] Jess: graded B+ Contradictory and mutually exclusive relationships. In Marx’s 

analysis, the contradictory and mutually exclusive relationships that are contained in the 

process of exchanging commodities, is found in an item’s use-value and its exchange value. 

An item’s use value is expressed through its exchange value, which means it can get skewed 

very easily. For example, the commodity of lumber should hypothetically have a high use 

value because it can be used for a variety of things. However, it does not require vast amounts 

of labor to extract, which is why it is exchanged at such a low cost. On the opposite end 

of the spectrum, one can find the commodity of diamonds. Diamonds are beautiful to look


at, but they don’t really have much use outside of jewelry and adornments. If one were 

to base an exchange value on commodities purely on an item’s use value, lumber would 

hypothetically cost more than diamonds. However, we know this is not the case, and that 

is because diamonds require way more labor to extract. This increase in labor requirements 

increases a diamond’s worth, which helps explain the difference in selling power. 

Hans: This is not the contradiction in the exchange process but the contradiction between real wealth and monetary 

wealth. 

Message [1441] referenced by [1448]. Next Message by Jess is [1442]. 

Question 449 is 363 in 2005fa, 385 in 2007SP, 397 in 2008fa, 412 in 2009fa, 443 in 

2010fa, 431 in 2011fa, and 363 in Answer: 

Question 449 What does Marx mean when he says in 198:3/o: one must look at the circulation 

of commodities from its form side? 

[802] SLOVENEC: What Marx means in his statement about the importance of looking 

at the form side behind the circulation of commodities is that although the an exchange of 

an item looks simple on the surface, it is in fact a process of a commodity molding itself into 

different forms that fulfill the need of the producer and consumer. As Marx puts it, “In so far 

the process of exchange transfers commodities from hands in which they are non-use-values 

to hands in which they are use-values, it is a process of social metabolism.” The commodity 

is important to the producer because of both its value and the fact that to him, it has no 

desired use-value, so he finds a buyer searching for that use-value and engages them into an


exchange. Once the commodity passes into the buyer’s hands, it changes from having value 

and non-use-value and will now become one of its other forms as a needed use-value to 

the individual who bought it for consumption. Therefore, when envisioning the circulation 

of commodities, imagine a tube where there are three holes through which the commodity 

must pass through. Each hole has its own shape and meaning (i.e. square stands for value, 

circle stands for non-use-value, and star stands for use-value). The commodity is like a ball 

of putty that is pushed through each hole, taking on different shapes throughout the process, 

but never changing what it is. Such is the process of commodity circulation. Commodities 

take on different forms when they are in the hands of their producers and consumers. 

Hans: You misunderstand the form change. Look again at Marx’s text! 


[817] Alee: By the statement “one must look at the circulation of commodities from its 

form side” Marx meant that in order to understand how the process of individual selling and 

buying (transferring products from producer to consumer) works the whole process must 

be looked at from the form side. The need to only look at the form change. Which means 

that we are not looking at use-values but only at the values. The view of “from the form 

side” is instead of having the idea of a process to first sell and then buy something to have 

the view of “from the form side” which is a process involving three different forms of the 

same commodity. First use-value for others, then value unencumbered by any use-value, 

then third use-value for its owner.


Hans: Your own description of the form changes shows that the characterization “we are not looking at use-values 

but only at the values” is wrong. You should have consulted [Answer:18]. 

Message [817] referenced by [833]. Next Message by Alee is [1028]. 

[831] JEP: Metamorphosis of Value. To look at circulation of commodities from its 

form side is the examining of the transformation of a commodity’s underlying value as it is 

produced and exchanged in the market. The specific commodity goes through a metamorphosis, 

form change, of value as it moves through circulation, starting with a use-value of 

the producer for which he or she doesn’t need. This lack of necessity for the use-value of 

the commodity by the producer instigates a metamorphosis to the form value of money, or in 

Marx’s time gold, and the producer then exchanges the commodity for money. The producer 

who had recently exchanged the commodity then takes the money and exchanges it for a 

different commodity that is of necessity and has a use-value. Throughout circulation the 

original producer holds the value of the original commodity, the value just takes on different 

forms. 

This three-phase metamorphosis of value is highlighted by a great example by Hans 

[2010fa:528]. Hans describes the three stages of a butterfly, something many of us learn 

as young children, to show how something can take different forms, yet be the same creature 

(value in our case). In the butterfly example we can physically see the different forms the 

butterfly takes on throughout its life, providing a concrete example to learn from. Although 

the value form of a commodity may not be as clear as the life cycle of a butterfly, the concept


is the same, value can take different forms throughout circulation but remain the same as the 

original value. 


[833] AR: This is a response to [817]. Marx states that one must look at circulation 

from its form side saying that the circulation of commodities has different use-values for 

different people in the circulation of the commodities process. Alee [817] does give some 

good reasons why circulation needs to looked at from the form side but lacks an in-depth 

analysis of the circulation itself. 

Marx talks of “social metabolism of use-values” which explains how products through 

the division of labor change hands after they are produced. “People do not consume their 

own products but the products of others.” Form comes into play when the exchanges of these 

use-values are processed. This all takes place in the activities in the market. “Commodity 

forms are socially induced properties of the commodities.” Marx states that the circulation 

changes these properties. He uses an example of the linen weaver and how the commodity 

in hand is a use-value to others but not the producer. This is more or less how form and 

circulation connect; “first use-value for others, then value unencumbered by any use-value, 

then use-value for its owner.” 


[1210] Shelly: graded A The Form Side. To look at commodity circulation from its form 

side is to view the process as a metamorphosis. This shows that the commodity owner is


still in possession of the value produced, it has simply changed form: the commodity transforms 

from a use-value not needed by the commodity owner, to its independent value form 

(money), to a commodity with use-value the owner needs/desires. Marx uses the analogy 

of metamorphosis to view one side of commodity circulation, rather than looking at the 

interaction of two separate commodities. This form is represented by C-M-C. 

Hans: I changed “form of value” to “its (i.e., the value’s) independent value form.” 


[1474] Skylerp: Marx is pointing out that each commodity can have a different form 

side in the circulation of commodities. The circulation of commodities must be looked at 

from its form side because each commodity has its own value and is produced with different 

materials. 


Question 453 is 330 in 2003fa, 370 in 2004fa, 364 in 2005fa, 386 in 2007SP, 397 in 

2008SP, 398 in 2008fa, 413 in 2009fa, and 444 in 2010fa: 

Question 453 The empirical appearance of the processes of sale and purchase encourages 

a naive mistake, which makes it difficult to understand the metamorphosis of the commodity. 

Which mistake? 

[818] Basil: The Elusive Qualities of Sale and Exchange. The mistake often made 

when examining the process of sale and purchase occurs when individuals perceive the sale


and purchase process as one of barter and exchange rather than one of metamorphosis of 

the commodity. This mistake can further be described as confusing each sale or purchase 

as a transaction involving two different commodities, when in reality it is a transaction that 

involves the evolving use-value and value forms of one commodity. 

For example, an individual may perceive the transaction of 20 yards linen for $5 as the 

exchange or barter of the use-value linen for its equivalent in the use-value gold. However, 

this perception does not identify that $5 does not represent the use-value gold, but it represents 

the Money Form of the General Equivalent form of Value for linen. As Hans describes 

in Annotations [p. 283], $5 “is the money shape of the commodity 20 yards of linen.” Therefore, 

a sale and purchase transaction does not result in the exchange of two use-values, nor 

is the intent of the commodity owners to attain another use-value. A sale and purchase depicts 

the metamorphosis of the commodity “from the form side” as a process involving two 

forms of the same commodity: “first use-value for others, then value unencumbered by any 

use-value.” And when the money received for the linen is then used to purchase another 

commodity, the form becomes a “use-value for its owner” [p. 282]. They key distinction is 

that money is not viewed as a separate commodity as in a barter transaction, but it is viewed 

as the representation of the value of the commodity linen. 

Hans: Your second sentence was originally: 

This mistake can further be described as confusing sale and purchase as a transaction involving 

two different use-values, when in reality it is a transaction that involves the evolving form of 

value of the commodity.


I changed it because even if you look at it from the form side (as you should), you see two different use-values— 

they are two different use-value forms of the same commodity. Looking at it from the form side does not only mean 

value forms but includes the use-value forms as well. 


[840] Glister: process of sale and purchase. After reading this section several times, I 

think I finally understand what Marx is trying to explain when he talks about the processes 

of a sale and purchases. While reading Marx, he explains that it is difficult to see that a 

barter transaction is very different than barter between two normal goods without money 

(exchange) is very different. Every form change of a commodity has two things, ordinary 

commodity and money commodity. Barter has two main parts giving something away for 

something to be received. Marx explains that in a sale you only need to worry about the 

giving or sale that’s why Marx says that the sale of a good is a form change and not a barter 

between two commodities selling. The main mistake that I found is that barter is often 

looking at and conceived as exchanging money for a common good. The “process of sale 

and purchase”. For example if I go out and buy a new pen to write with and pay for it with 

a 10-dollar bill. That is not barter, it is simply a sale and purchase transaction. The reason 

for this is due to the paper itself not having use value this is why the metamorphosis of a 

commodity is hard to understand. 

Glister: I sent an email that had the wrong content, if there is any way to discard that email that would be great. 

The email content was somebody else’s 888 submission, the subject was process of sale and purchase. I meant to 

send my homework assignment but copied the wrong material. 

Hans: The definition of “barter” is: exchange of two commodities neither of which is money.


I made it an ungraded submission but didn’t want to delete it because it seems whoever wrote it was trying 

to understand the text. Keep on trying. It is difficult to know what to pay attention to in reading such a text, this 

requires a lot of practice. 


Question 468 is 397 in 2007fa, 403 in 2008fa, and 418 in 2009fa: 

Question 468 What does Marx mean with the aphorism: “Money may be dirt, although dirt 

is not money.” 

[810] Neela: graded B+ Money in the bank... What Marx means by the aphorism: 

“Money may be dirt, although dirt is not money” can be broken down by piece. The first half 

that says, “Money may be dirt” means that one gained their money through selling something. 

On page 301 in Annotations it states, “In order to have this money, one must have 

made a sale”. The sale can be the sale of anything, and including dirt. In other words, they 

could have sold dirt for money, therefore ‘money is the value form of the dirt’. The second 

half that says, “...dirt is not money” means that although you may sell dirt for money, you 

cannot purchase items with dirt. The dirt is not valuable to the possessor until it is turned 

into money. 

Message [810] referenced by [816], [832], and [849]. Next Message by Neela is [883]. 

[816] Hans: Think “copper” instead of dirt. The following proposition is also true, let’s 

first discuss it, and then see where question 468 differs:


“Money may be copper, although copper is not money.” 

Neela’s answer [810] can be adapted for copper almost entirely. As Neela did, I will split 

the answer into two halves. 

The first half “money may be copper” means that the owner of money may have obtained 

this money through selling anything, and this anything may have been copper. 

The second half “...copper is not money” means that although people can sell copper for 

money, they cannot purchase items with copper. 

Why not? Now Neela’s answer gets wrong. Neela says: “The copper is not valuable to 

the possessor until it is turned into money.” This is wrong for the following reason: 

(1) “Valuable” in this context cannot mean use-value. The question whether copper has 

use-value for its owner or not is not what determines what can be done with it on the market. 

(2) Therefore let’s look at the value of copper, meaning the congealed abstract labor in 

the copper, and let’s assume we live under the gold standard. If someone sells copper on 

the market for money, then the value of the copper sold is exactly equal to the value of the 

money (gold) received. Therefore the reason why one cannot use copper to buy things is not 

that it is not valuable enough. It is not the quantity of value that distinguishes money from 

copper but its form of value. If there is a general equivalent (money) then people will not 

accept other commodities in direct barter but they will insist on receiving money.


The problem with dirt is that the word “dirt” does not indicate whether it is a valuable 

commodity (potting soil) or a value-less byproduct of some other activity. The kind of dirt 

which can be sold for money is a valuable commodity, and if we are talking about valuable 

commodities, the reasoning is exactly the same as with copper. 

Message [816] referenced by [832], [849], and [1330]. Next Message by Hans is [822]. 

[832] AndyUte: graded D Money for Dirt. It is quite clear from Marx’s aphorism: 

“Money may be dirt, although dirt is not money”, that he is alluding to money’s ability to be 

exchanged for any commodity and dirt’s lack of ability to be exchanged for any commodity. 

It is simple to understand the part “Money may be dirt....” when we read Hans’ response 

to [2007fa:302]. He states that “money can be transformed into any use value”. Similarly, 

on page 302 in Annotations it reads that “Money is the absolutely alienable commodity, because 

it is the disembodied shape of all other commodities.” Money is universal, it can be 

exchanged for dirt and all other commodities. Dirt, however, cannot be exchanged for any 

commodity. I agree with Neela [2012fa:810] when she says, “The dirt is not valuable to the 

possessor until it is turned into money.” Unlike the universal exchangeability of money, dirt 

is not going to get you very much. 

Hans: You are repeating exactly the errors which I tried to correct in [816]. To say it again, Marx is not talking 

about dirt that is a valueless byproduct of construction or mining, but compost or potting soil or similar, which is a 

commodity just like copper. 

Next Message by AndyUte is [1006].


[843] KATES: Money and Dirt. Marx regards money as a possible exchange for commodities, 

he assumes that it alienates both the input labor and the laborer himself. Marx sees 

every economic relation as a social relation. The exchange value of money can dangerously 

fluctuate, and is based on the trust people have in its value. Recognizing that the exchangevalue 

of money is a construction of limited relevance to economic domains we can gain a 

better understanding of the ways in which money is imagined, transformed or ignored. 

In order to have money you need to have made a sale to gain money. When you sell 

something someone else purchases an item which makes it a sell. A sell can be anything as 

long as it is a commodity that someone is willingly to buy such as dirt or anything else. If 

someone wants dirt then someone can sell dirt for money which makes money a value form 

of dirt if dirt is desired. Dirt is not money though because dirt is not valued in the same way 

as money. Dirt has value if people are willingly to pay for it with money. Because people are 

willingly to accept money for dirt and money for other commodities then money becomes 

what people expect to receive for commodities. But dirt is not money because when trading 

commodities people will expect to receive money and not dirt. You can sell dirt for money 

but you can’t purchase another commodity for dirt. 

Hans: How is your first paragraph relevant for the question asked? 


[849] JohnLennon: Dirt is not money. I’ve found this question quite interesting. Many 

have broken up the question into two parts and many have mostly focused on the first part


unless there is some stuff I’ve missed in the archives. For the sake of this question I will 

break into the two traditional parts as well. 

The first part. As referenced by Neela [810], “Money may be dirt” means that one gained 

their money through selling something/commodity or in this instance dirt. We see this part of 

the answer to be correct in many instances when this question is asked for the course. To be 

even more plain here is another example from MikeyMoz [2008fa:1065] “A person wishing 

to buy something with their dirt needs to exchange their dirt for gold, this is done through 

the process of selling. This newly transformed dirt can now be used to buy anything.” The 

phrase “newly transformed dirt” is referencing gold or money. 

Now let’s look at the second half. “Dirt is not money” In a capitalist society dirt is not 

money. Money is money. I like the phrase in annotations that states “But the purchaser 

is in a different position than you. He needs money to make the purchase, while you do 

not need money for making the sale”. I had never considered the idea that money is not 

a requirement for selling an item. Money is only needed to purchase. It’s kind of funny to 

think that the phrase “it takes money to make money” is so far from the truth in this scenario. 

It takes a commodity to make money. So why would anybody want to trade one commodity 

for another at equal value (assuming there was a way to determine equal value), when they 

could trade the commodity for money which can be used to purchase whatever they want. 

Nobody wants to be tied down to the barter system, because nobody can ever get what they 

truly want through trade. Just as Hans stated this semester [816] “It is not the quantity of


value that distinguishes money from copper/dirt but its form of value”. I don’t know if I can 

bold and underline the word “form”, but it definitely should be. The form of money gives us 

purchasing power not selling power, therefore dirt/commodity is not money. 


[1193] Elias: graded B Too Much Face Value. Perhaps I was looking into Marx’s aphorism 

too much at face value. I took the quote as meaning that money is a creation that takes 

the form of a good that is regarded as “money.” That the idea of money could be applied to 

anything that is tangible to humans, even dirt. This is based on the understanding that money 

is created as a way to exchange for goods, yet it has to be a good itself that has a perceived 

value by society. Therefore, if we lived in a world that had high esteem for dirt, there is a 

possibility that it could be used as money. Thus, “dirt can be money”. 

However, it would not be as effective as gold, because it is in great abundance and not 

scarce like gold and other precious metals that were used as currency in Marx’s time. Thus, 

“dirt is not money”. 

Yet from the looks of understanding from others that the quote is understood as saying 

that dirt may have been sold for money, that doesn’t mean that dirt can be considered money 

in a different transaction. Which would tie a little into what I was stating that dirt is too 

abundant and doesn’t have enough value to be able to be used effectively as a currency.


Hans: The reason why dirt cannot be used as money is not that dirt lacks value. The dirt which you can buy does 

have value. Even if your example uses a valuable commodity, such as copper, you cannot buy things with copper 

either. Dirt and copper are lacking the proper value form to serve as money. 

Next Message by Elias is [1195]. 

[1233] Alee: “Money may be dirt although dirt is not money” can as well be looked at as 

“Money may be copper although copper is not money.” The first part “Money may be dirt” 

or “Money may be copper” means that the owner may have earned this money by selling 

something and that something may have been copper. And the second part “although dirt is 

not money” or “copper is not money” means that although you can sell copper for money 

you cannot buy items with copper. 

Next Message by Alee is [1234]. 

[1330] Gunther: graded A I’d first like to start my response by replacing dirt with copper. 

If an individual obtains wealth it may be that they did so by selling their copper to obtain 

it. But that individual can’t go out and purchase other commodities with that copper. Hans 

said in [816], “If there is a general equivalent (money) then people will not accept other 

commodities in direct barter but they will insist on receiving money [instead].” Therefore, 

money may be dirt but dirt is not money. 

Next Message by Gunther is [1331]. 

[1372] Amcelhiney: Dirt can have use-value while money is only exchangeable for the 

value of dirt as a commodity. Dirt can be used as money; exchangeable for other commodities 

but cannot hold a use-value. Value in money can be gained from selling dirt.


Hans: Dirt can have use-value but dirt cannot hold a use-value? Value can be gained by selling dirt? 

Next Message by Amcelhiney is [1380]. 

Exam Question 480 is 376 in 2005fa, 398 in 2007SP, 411 in 2008SP, 412 in 2008fa, 427 

in 2009fa, 462 in 2010fa, and 459 in 2011fa: 

Exam Question 480 How does Marx define a crisis? 

[1097] PJM: How Marx Defines a Crisis. In general, Marx defines a crisis as a violent 

force that results from the external separation of two objects that are intrinsically related. 

The objects can only evolve independently so far until their independent evolution comes 

to an end due to the inner unity, which violently asserts itself. Marx discusses crisis in 

relation to the commodity circulation, which, by separating purchase and sale which are 

both related as parts of the exchange process, gives rise to the possibility of crises. An 

important example of such a crisis was the 2008 recession. The crisis was caused by the 

ability to take out mortgages which effectively displaced the buying and selling of houses 

through time. However, over that time when people were buying their houses, the housing 

bubble burst, causing a rapid devaluation of assets. However, mortgage payments stayed the 

same or even increased, causing a crisis. If the purchase and sale of houses would not have 

been so separated in time and place, the crisis could have arguably been avoided. 

Hans: Your definition of crises is good, but it is incomplete. Crisis can also be the forcible separation of two things 

which should be intrinsically separate but which were externally combined.


Your characterization of the substandard mortgage bubble does not seem convincing to me, but it is a good idea 

to look whether it fits into Marx’s framework. I think it is a crisis of the second kind: instead of paying for the 

houses with the equity they have due to their income, people tried to pay for their houses with the equity which they 

acquired when buying the house. But intrinsically you cannot pay something with its own value, you must have 

something different that is valuable to pay for it. For a while it worked because it was a bubble, but then it crashed 

as it had to. 


[1109] AndyUte: graded A CRISIS. Marx defines a crisis in two different ways. First, 

a crisis is the forcible separation of things that are internally separate but that are bound 

together by an external bond. Secondly a crisis can be the forcible unification of things that 

internally belong together but that have an externally separate existence. 

Hans: This is the right definition, sufficient for a designated exam question, although it cries out for elaboration 

and examples. 

Only one quibble: look at it not statically but as a process of motion. Instead of your “forcible unification of 

things that internally belong together but that have an externally separate existence” I would prefer the formulation 

“forcible unification of things that internally belong together but that externally have moved too far apart.” Read 

[2011fa:757]. But these are details, for an exam the above answer is entirely satisfactory. 



Question 495 Interruptions in the circulation of money are very mundane practical facts. 

How can they have enough influence to initiate an entirely new social function of money, 

namely money as a hoard?


[854] Villa: graded A Going back a step. When a coin is interrupted it is turned into 

money, the metamorphosis of commodities has stopped. This is the start of a new social 

relation that is classified as hoarding - the word is meant to have the negative connotation 

removed and to be thought as formation of treasure as Hans explained in the annotations - it 

has its place in society as means to prepare for emergencies or living expenses. It is a practical 

fact as the question suggests because it happens all the time in society. Bigger purchases 

require selling more commodities and not immediately exchanging them for something of 

equal value. This can be thought of as the positive side of hoarding, one saves to buy a vehicle, 

a downpayment for a house, college tuition, etc. We can see the usefulness of money 

as exchange value because producer A may not be in need of producer B’s commodity and 

it might result in ridiculous amounts of one commodity; I imagine exchanging 2,000 pairs 

of shoes for a vehicle would not be reasonable. However, the fetish-like character of gold 

that supposedly holds power would play to the greed of a consumer in that he/she would 

more than plainly want, but enjoy hoarding more and more gold as possible. This is that step 

back we must take in order to understand better why a person continues to hoard gold further. 

Its fetish like power is alluring, for if a person hoarded money only for the purpose of 

emergency or commodities with higher exchange values, such as vehicles, a certain amount 

could be set and reached. However, as workers are exploited in capitalism and higher profits 

gained we can see that this is certainly not the case, more is always wanted. Perhaps this is 

why hoarding has a negative connotation to begin with in the English language. 

Message [854] referenced by [860]. Next Message by Villa is [873].


[860] Nunu: Significance of money as a hoard. Interruptions in the circulation of 

money have enough influence to initiate money as a hoard because everybody wants money, 

everybody can make use of money. However, Hans points out that Marx is not referring 

to hoarding as the selfish acquiring of a thing but rather for the usefulness of the thing, its 

treasure-like quality. Villa [854] and Skiingforlunch [2011fa:561] also mention this point in 

their submissions. As the circulation of money increased so did its social power and so did 

its demand and the need and passion to hang on to it. What was once only material wealth 

turned into social wealth. Money holds potential to be exchanged for many things (nearly 

everything) and people recognize it as such. When money is immobilized its potential is 

recognized, it is not merely the transfer between two commodities that comes and goes. 

At the point when money stops circulating dynamics change. Money as a hoard is seen 

as a treasure that “has its place in society as means to prepare for emergencies or living 

expenses [including those unexpected]” Villa, [854]. Society gave money power when it 

was recognized, like Marx says, as the “absolute and ever ready social form of wealth.” The 

social significance that money has been given by society makes it desirable. When money is 

not being spent after having been exchanged for a commodity, it can be considered surplus 

money, it helps people be prepared for necessities and it can also show society that the 

individual has plentiful of all necessities and wants, so much that the individual can hold onto 

the money and not spend. However this is not entirely always the case, people also choose 

to hold on to money for the power that it brings, in the correct amount it holds potential to 

acquire any other commodity, Skiiingforlunch [2011fa:561] also makes this point.


Message [860] referenced by [1358]. Next Message by Nunu is [888]. 

[1358] Nunu: A social function of money: hoarding. Marx says that money is the 

“absolute and ever ready form of social wealth”. Nunu [2012fa:860] mentions: “As the circulation 

of money increased so did its social power,...its demand and the need and passion to 

hang on to it”. Furthermore, people understand the power of money and that it can be used as 

means of exchange for nearly everything whether it is in the present or for future necessities 

or emergencies. Furthermore, money is hoarded because of its treasure-like quality, not in a 

selfish sense where people want to keep as much as they can so that nobody else can have it, 

but in the sense that people can always make use of it even when it is out of circulation and 

not being used at the present moment. 

Hans: What people appreciate so much about money is that it is both a social relation and a thing. It is a social 

relation which you can stick into your pocket. It is not surprising that the thing-like aspect of money acts back and 

modifies the social relations in which money is involved. 

Next Message by Nunu is [1359]. 

Question 496 is 402 in 2004fa, 410 in 2007SP, 413 in 2007fa, 419 in 2008SP, 421 in 

2008fa, 437 in 2009fa, 473 in 2010fa, and 475 in 2011fa: 

Question 496 Explain the individual motivation for hoarding money. Do these hoards have 

a function for the economy as a whole or only for the individual? 

[857] TMM: Individual Motivation For Hoarding Money. The individual motivation 

for hoarding money is derived from the fact that money is representative of many use-values


you can apply it to. Individuals in society may hoard money in order to realize social power. 

It is necessary to hoard money in an economy, however it is mostly due to individual activity 

and people’s fascination with money. Hans states in [2008SP:435] that in Marx’s time, 

the money that was not needed for circulation was not returned to the banking system, it 

was in fact horded by gold hoarders and kept private. This proved to be beneficial for the 

economy because it was also in the form where the reserves of the gold hoards could then 

be used for international transactions. It is the individual’s passion for money and the obsession 

to abstain from the circulation process and accumulate more reserves. The hoarders (as 

stated by Marx Student in [2011fa:1209] have a function in the economy where they act as 

a buffer when the process of selling commodities (C-M) has not been offset the commodity 

purchases (M-C). This means that when the difference between the purchasing and selling of 

commodities is too great, money would then be released from the hoarders into the system 

to allow proper circulation and satisfy the imbalance. Hans writes in [2008SP:435] that the 

economic functions of modern consumer debt are quite different where one of the biggest 

contradictions in capitalism is overproduction, where so much is produced and not enough 

can be sold because very little wages are paid, thus leaving an escape route through debt. 

This means that capitalists in a modern society can continue selling products without raising 

wages, accumulate capital from debt service payments leaving the consumers in debt as a 

way out of mountains of debt that is no longer able to be repaid. Marx writes that together 

with circulation “necessity and passion” is created to keep money out of circulation and to


hoard it instead. Money was originally created in order to aid to the process of circulation, 

commodities are sold not in order to buy commodities, but in order to replace their 

commodity form with their money form where the change in form becomes an end in itself. 

Hans: You had originally: “very little wages are paid because not enough can be sold.” Marx thinks the causality 

goes the opposite direction, therefore I changed it into “not enough can be sold because very little wages are paid.” 


[863] IrwinFletcher: graded B+ This is a question that I believe to have many layers and 

complexities. The more pensive I am about the profoundness of this question the more I 

believe that the function of hoarding money is unlike any other form or function of money. 

There are a handful of motives for which someone would want to hoard money. The first 

motive is the desire to accumulate as much money as possible. Many people look to money 

as a social status symbol. The other reason is more practical and that is hoarding money 

would be useful in a trade deficit. For example I use the fable of the ant and the grasshopper. 

The fable concerns a grasshopper that has spent the warm months singing and lounging 

while the ant worked hard to hoard and keep the grains of wheat she had worked so hard to 

gather. Once winter hit the grasshopper had no food to eat because he had hoarded nothing. 

Being faced with a trade deficit the ant chose not to be a positive function for society. For 

her personally she had options to eat the wheat that she gathered or use it to gain other 

necessities. When faced with the perils of improvidence it is wise to hoard. 

Hans: When you say “the ant chose not to be a positive function for society” you mean it would have been a 

positive function for society if the ant had worked less and consumed everything she produced? Please explain how


you mean this. There is no money in Aesop’s fable, the fable is about hoarding food for the winter, not hoarding 

money. 

Next Message by IrwinFletcher is [902]. 

[866] Gunther: content C form 90% Hoarding Money. There can be a number of 

reasons why individuals hoard money. Sometimes it can be for reasons of greed or power, 

and to increase their social status by collecting money being considered wealthy. Other 

times it can be that the individual feels the need to save for an emergency, or buy something 

expensive. When people hoard money they literally take it out of the circulation of the 

economy and like Milly says in [2010fa:1116] “deciding not to buy after selling.” Hoarding 

can hurt the economy as whole when those that are wealthy are amassing money and proceed 

to accumulate even more wealth. Marx says that sometimes circulation must be interrupted 

for economic reasons but for the most part it is the individuals following the lure of money. 

Hans: You had “sometimes circulation must be interjected for economic reasoning.” I think you mean “interrupted” 

instead of “interjected,” and “economic reasons” instead of “economic reasoning.” Only after I made these changes 

I realized that this makes it identical to Milly’s formulation, but if you paraphrase you should at least paraphrase in 

a way that makes sense. 

If you want to substitute “lure” for “fascination” you have to change the grammar of the sentence too: you had 

“the individual’s lure with money” and I changed it into “the individuals following the lure of money.” 


[880] Hans: Hoarding: Good or Bad? Just to clarify two points:


(1) if people hoard money in order to get social status, Marx would call this an individual 

motivation, although modern language usage might consider it a “social” motivation. Marx 

did not use the word “social” in this way. I alluded to this also in [453]. 

(2) Don’t see it as an either-or situation. Don’t think: either people hoard for selfish 

reasons, or they hoard for the sake of the economy as a whole. People usually hoard because 

it benefits them personally. The question asked: under what circumstances does it also 

benefit the economy as a whole? 


[1393] IrwinFletcher: graded A– There are a few reasons for hoarding money. One of 

those reasons is for a symbol of status. I agree with Marx and his thinking when he says 

that money doesn’t determine value, it only determines price. It’s for that reason that an 

individual should not hoard money with the intent to “save it for a rainy day”. If that day 

should come there is a chance that his money will be utterly useless. Hoarding money does 

indirectly and directly have a function on the economy. it serves a circulation function. 

Hans: Marx is critical of the miser, who hoards money in order to enrich himself. He is not critical of hoarding 

money for a rainy day, on the contrary, he considers this a legitimate reason for hoarding money. 


[1395] SLOVENEC: An individual’s motivation for hoarding money comes from an individual’s 

unquenchable want for commodities and more money. Although money itself 

cannot feed us or keep us warm, we as humans, view it as a means of accessing commodities 

for both consumption and advancement of money i.e. creating more money. Because


of money’s measure of value, each person seeks to obtain as much as possible while also 

limiting how much is spent for other goods. As to whether hoarding has a function for the 

economy, it serves as the backbone of the financial sector and makes available capital for 

banks to lend. However, hoarding of money also can lead to a liquidity crisis, in which 

everyone wants to sell items, but not buy anything. 

Hans: Hoarding, as Marx uses the word, is not the same as invesing. The assumption is that the money will not 

earn any returns while hoarded. 

An individual’s “unquenchable want for commodities” would not be the motivation of the hoarder but of the 

spendthrift, who is the opposite of the hoarder. 

All this has nothing to do with the function of money as measure of value. 


Exam Question 497 is 422 in 2008fa, 438 in 2009fa, 474 in 2010fa, and 476 in 2011fa: 

Exam Question 497 Give an example of a transaction between P and Q in which P sells to 

Q but Q does not purchase from P. 

[1120] Shelly: graded A P-Q. Sale and Barter. An example would be a merchant walking 

up to a gold digger and selling his blankets for the gold just pulled from the ground. For the 

merchant, this transaction is a sale because he has a commodity he is willing to exchange in 

order to obtain money (so he can buy other commodities needed), but for the gold digger it 

was a barter transaction because the commodity he just “produced” is already money. There


was no need for a previous transaction to occur so that the gold digger could acquire money 

to buy the blankets; he simply dug it from the ground. 

Hans: Very good. 

Message [1120] referenced by [1121]. Next Message by Shelly is [1140]. 

[1121] Brie: Sweden. In Sweden, there are fields of beautiful flowers that grow behind 

John’s home. Because the flowers grow on his property, he cuts them at the height of their 

bloom and takes them to the town market. During this time, he is approached by Leo whom 

wishes to trade for meat which has been prepared on his farm. The trade now provides Leo 

with a commodity which he can sell for cash value at the town market, and provides John 

with meat for his family. The flowers represent a commodity which John obtained without 

trade or money; they were already worth a cash value upon his act of cutting them for barter. 

Hans: You misunderstand the question. The right answer is [1120]. 


Question 498 Is the transaction by which the gold producer trades his product for the usevalues 

he needs a purchase or a barter? 

[916] Littlerock: (graded A) Sale of Gold: Barter or Purchase? I believe that the answer 

to this question is that it would normally be a purchase. The exception to this rule would be 

if the person receiving the gold wants the gold for a use-value besides that of money. If the 

purchaser of the gold, for example, wished to receive it in order to use it for dental fillings, 

then it would be a barter. Money is money when it is used as a measure of value and as


means of circulation. Money as money contains the potential to be converted to any kind of 

use-value sold on the market. If the purchaser of gold wishes to use it, as in this example, for 

dental fillings, then she is not planning on using it to facilitate future purchases. It will no 

longer be used as means of circulation and it will lose its ability to be converted to an infinite 

number of other use-values. It is not being used as money, it is no longer money, and the 

transaction is a barter. However, if the person trading for the gold plans to use it as means 

of circulation and as a way to be able to obtain other use-values, than the gold is being used 

as money, the purpose of trading for the gold was to obtain money, and the transaction is a 

purchase, not a barter. 

Hans: Your distinction makes sense, but it is the criterion whether the person trading for the gold is selling or 

bartering their own commodity for gold. See my [981] for this. For the gold producer, trading his gold for usevalues 

he needs is never a purchase, it is always a barter (Marx uses the word “direct exchange” for the same 

transaction which I call “barter”). 

Jason [923] gives textual evidence that Marx classifies it this way. To Marx, sale and then purchase are two 

halves of what would otherwise have been a barter. In the case of he gold producer, there is no need to split the 

transaction into two, it can stay un-split, therefore it is a barter and not a purchase. 

Message [916] referenced by [923] and [1467]. Next Message by Littlerock is [930]. 

[923] Jason: (graded A) Gold Directly from the Producer. Reading Chapter 3, I got a 

different impression from the text and the annotations than Littlerock [916]. Normally, the 

exchange of Gold is a purchase, as the “deed” has already been done, and Gold has been 

selected as the general equivalent. However, this question asks about the special case of the 

Gold producers trading their newly-produced Gold. It seems to me as if Marx considered


this, from the perspective of the Gold-trader, a barter transaction. Marx writes “(Gold), at 

the sources of (its) production, however (is) directly exchanged for other commodities. Here 

we have sales (by the owners of commodities) without purchases (by the owners of Gold...) 

(akmk, pg. 228:2/oo).” I translate this as a barter transaction. 

From the point of view of the Gold producer, the transaction has taken the form C-C. The 

Gold producer has managed to take a non-use-value, and turn it into an immediate-use-value, 

with no intermediate step. The fact a social act has already occurred to fuse the use-value 

Gold with the universal measure of value, and the means of circulation, such that the usevalue 

the Gold-trader exchanges can immediately be stamped with the ‘M’ monicker is not 

insignificant. But, to Marx, in order to be a purchase, this Gold must already be the product 

of a prior sale. 

Message [923] referenced by [916]. Next Message by Jason is [924]. 

[981] Hans: The Answer, Briefly, Without Explanation. For the producer of gold it 

is a barter and not a purchase. For the other partner in this transaction it is usually a sale, 

assuming this other partner uses the gold to purchase other things with it. In the exceptional 

case that the other partner uses the gold for filling his teeth, then it is a barter for the other 

partner too. 


[1142] Abysmal: graded A A gold producer trading his product for use-values he needs 

is a barter, not a purchase. C-M-C does not occur as normal, as the producer’s end of this


exchange is already in the money form, and needn’t be converted into the money commodity. 

In this case, the other producer conducts a sale to the gold producer, but the gold producer 

does not purchase. Hans used examples of the U.S. printing money to exchange for oil, and 

Kennecott exchanging minerals it extracts for oil, and this case is no different. This is a 

barter, not a purchase. 

Hans: The Kennecott example does not come from me, but from OBJ in [2011fa:767]. I added a remark now that 

such barters do not happen in practice. Under the gold standard, Kennecott could have taken the gold it produces 

directly to the mint and used the money it received to “buy” something. I put “buy” into scare quotes because Marx 

would not call it a purchase, and taking gold to the mint is not a sale, but rather related to making change, i.e., 

breaking up a $100 bill into five $20 bills. I wrote about Kennecott and gold in [2011fa:770]. 


[1146] ImmanentMaterialist: Since gold represents the money form of commodities, 

if the gold producer were to trade some of his gold for a particular use-value it would be 

a purchase—not a barter. The only way in which a case such as this could be considered 

properly as a barter would be if the producer were to craft his gold into some sort of usevalue 

(say, fillings for a tooth or jewelry) and then traded the gold as that form in a manner 

that did not reflect the price of the commodity for which it has been exchanged. 

Hans: In both cases, it would be a barter for the gold producer. In the second case it would not be a sale by the 

other party in this transaction, the owner of the use-valued the gold producer needs, while in the first case it would 

be a sale for him or her. 

Next Message by ImmanentMaterialist is [1147].


[1168] SVN: Test 2 Resubmission Question 498. This transaction for the gold producer 

is a barter for several reasons. The gold with which the gold producer “paid” for the commodity 

is gold that came from the ground, not gold that came from circulation. For the 

producer to get this gold, it did not require a sale, or a C-M on his part. This fact allows 

people to accumulate hoards of gold and for the flow of money to be interrupted. The money 

that is taken out of circulation is replaced by the gold producers trading their gold for other 

commodities on the market. The gold is brought out of the ground not only as a commodity 

with a use value, but also as a commodity that is already in a universally recognized general 

equivalent form. The gold producer does not have to convert his raw material into a 

commodity that can be exchanged for money with which he can then purchase other commodities 

that he needs. The gold producer’s commodity is directly exchangeable. He is able 

to take his commodity straight out of the ground and simply exchange it for any commodity 

that his quantity of gold can afford. Unlike a baker for example, who would first have to 

get all of his supplies together to to bake the bread and then would have to sell his bread 

for gold. He could then take that gold and purchase another commodity for it which would 

be a C-M-C process. In some instances, but it would vary with time and place, the baker 

could bypass the C-M-C process and barter using his bread to directly exchange for let’s say 

a bible. For the gold producer the transaction will be a barter because the gold producer can 

always take his commodity, gold, and exchange it for a bible or bread, without having to first 

sell his gold. For the gold producer his transaction will be a C-C process and will thus be a 

bartering process.



[1175] RikkiAllie: Gold is considered a value of currency. If a gold producer wants to 

use its use-value it would be purchasing an item, not bartering. With gold being considered 

money and the “market” has set prices due to a gold standard, gold is therefore set and can 

no longer be bartered. Barter items are if a commodity is exchanged for an equal commodity 

(buy/trader’s discretion). Once gold is used to purchase a commodity, then the new 

commodity would be available to be bartered. 

Hans: Your answer makes sense but this is not Marx’s use of the terms. 

Next Message by RikkiAllie is [1176]. 

[1183] Villa: graded A The act in question is a barter. He is trading a product for another 

use-value, not utilizing the money form of gold to buy another commodity. Marx would 

depict this transaction as commodity-commodity or C-C. If it were a purchase it would be 

characterized as M-C; this is certainly not the case as gold in this scenario is a product, i.e 

made from some means of production such as mining. For the other producer involved it 

could be a sale, unless the other person were using the gold for a use-value such as gold 

plating for a guitar. 

Next Message by Villa is [1185]. 

[1222] Reeree: The transaction that would take place by which the gold producer trades 

his product (meaning gold) for a use-value of his liking would not be a purchase, but a barter. 

This is because he has produced something that has not gone through the circulation cycle, 

so it has no “money” value to it.


Hans: Your answer is correct but the reason you give is not quite correct. It is not true that the gold lacks “money” 

value, because the gold has “money” value for the other person, for whom this identical transaction would be a sale. 

The reason Marx nevertheless calls it a “barter” and not a “purchase,” even though money is given in exchange, is 

that in Marx’s terminology, a purchase is a purchase because the money given is proof that the owner has produced 

something for which he or she has found a buyer. For a gold producer there is no such previous transaction, he 

directly uses his own private product, therefore Marx calls is a “barter.” 


[1258] Tim: graded A Barter. Since in this case the gold producer is trading his output 

directly for the output of another. 

Next Message by Tim is [1397]. 

[1306] Extraterrestrial: graded B A barter is trading a commodity for another commodity. 

In this case, if gold was the general currency, it would be a purchase. Gold, here, would 

be considered a general equivalent. If gold was not the general currency, and not widely 

accepted as currency or the general equivalent it would be considered a barter. 

Hans: This makes sense, but interestingly, Marx uses a different criterion. 


[1362] Batgirl: The transaction by which the gold producer trades his product for the 

use-values he needs is a barter for him, not a purchase. However, for his transaction partner 

it is usually a sale unless used for fillings or other actions, Hans mentions this in [981]. 

Next Message by Batgirl is [1363]. 

[1467] Tony: graded B– From Hans’s response to Littlerock [916], the other partner uses 

gold to further buy other things for their use-values, so he doesn’t take use-values from gold,


because he uses gold as a medium as exchange. So whether or not a person could instantly 

earn value from trade depends on whether or not medium of exchange comes to play a role. 

It doesn’t matter whether this person is a gold producer or not. The matter thing depends on 

whether medium of exchange play a role or not. To get use value from trade, a person needs 

to barter because if he trade for medium of exchange in a purchase, he earns exchange value, 

not use value from it. There is no money related in this sentence. It is a C-C (commodity to 

commodity), not the C-M (commodity to money) 

Next Message by Tony is [1468]. 

Question 505 is 278 in 1997sp, 267 in 1997ut, 274 in 1998WI, 285 in 1999SP, 321 in 

2001fa, 350 in 2002fa, 365 in 2003fa, 427 in 2008fa, and 443 in 2009fa: 

Question 505 Describe the inner contradiction of monetary abstract wealth which determine 

the goals of a miser, and the ridiculous contradiction of the means by which he is trying 

to reach this goal. 

[865] SVN: Miser Lifestyle. The inner contradiction of monetary abstract wealth is that 

qualitatively money is unlimited, but quantitatively it is limited. As Marx says, “money is 

unlimited: it is the universal representative of material wealth because it is directly convertible 

into any other commodity. But at the same time every actual sum of money is 

quantitatively limited, and therefore has only a limited efficacy as a means of purchase” 

(Annotations p. 324). This quote is representative of the curse of money, because on one


hand it can buy everything but on the other hand there is an upper limit to the amount of 

money a person can have. 

This creates an incentive to produce, to sell, and to accumulate. Production becomes 

based solely on the drive to accumulate money instead of just producing a use-value that 

can be exchanged for another use-value that one needs to subsist. The ways of a miser or 

hoarder change society from a C-M-C to a M-C-M. 

The miser does not realize that he is trapped in a contradiction though, because the contradiction 

is inherent in the commodity production society. No matter how much money he 

has, there will always be more money to accumulate, there is no ceiling, it is like trying to 

chase the horizon. As Hans describes on page 325 of the Annotations, “But however much 

money he has, it is never enough.” 

To accumulate the money the miser must spend very little of it along the way. Marx says, 

“The miser therefore sacrifices the lusts of his flesh to the fetish of gold” (Annotations pg. 

325) He therefore lives his life centered around the accumulation of ultimately, a bunch of 

use values, but use-values that will not be realized by him because he won’t spend. With 

such frugality he will not ever be able to enjoy his money for the phobia of parting with it 

is too great. The example of the miser, is a contradiction from numerous angles, but at its 

core is a wealthy member of a commodity producing/consumption based society that won’t 

consume.


Hans: A miser is not a wealthy capitalist that won’t consume, a miser is a worker who is trying to become wealthy 

by not consuming. Marx says this is impossible. 

You are confusing misers with capitalists. Your second paragraph is wrong, the reader should just disregard it. 


[1294] Kannon: First, when Marx discusses what a miser is he is not talking about a 

stingy capitalist in the way one would suspect today. Instead Marx is discussing workers 

who attempt to become capitalists or a at least get ahead through thrift. This is difficult for 

the worker because they are a paid a market wage that is equivalent to their living expenses. 

Even beyond their paltry level of subsistence however, Marx shows that a miser is doomed 

to fail in pursuing money through hoarding. The contradiction is that the miser is making 

himself poor to become rich; he is hoarding money because it is universal and can be used 

to obtain all use values. However, it is limited in a quantitative way and the miser can not 

actually accrue all use values. 

The miser is also doomed because because of the exploitative nature of the production 

process. This is because the laborer does not realize he is selling his labor power, not his 

labor as (s)he thinks. Instead, the value that this frugal worker is hidden and siphoned off 

by the capitalist. The capitalist is able to do this by owning the means of production. Also 

if there is a technological advance it will allow the capitalist to extract higher value from 

the laborer’s value of labor—but it appears to the laborer as selling the same labor—even 

though it is not accompanied by an increase in his wage. Once this technological advance


extends to more industry (especially gold production in Marx’s time) the price of living will 

increase and the miser will be no better off. 

Hans: This is not strictly “The right answer” but it is very thoughtful and interesting. You are describing the 

modern version of misers, working class people who try to get ahead by being very frugal. They are not identical to 

Marx’s misers, because they hope their savings will enable them to become capitalists. Marx was talking about the 

stylized character of a miser in pre-capitalist times who end up with lots of money which is sterile exactly because 

it can not be used to exploit workers and in this way increase its value by itself. 

I think the answer to the frugal worker is: most of those who indeed become small capitalists go bankrupt 

again. A better way to improve the lot of the workers used to be organizing in unions. But globalization and the 

competition of workers in the poor countries has eroded the bargaining power of the traditional unions. Capitalism 

itself is under stress because of the limits of growth and can no longer give the goodies it used to give to the working 

class. A frontal attack on capitalism is already necessary because capitalism destroys the environment, and also 

from the point of view of workers making a better living, the goal or replacing capitalism itself becomes more and 

more necessary. We already witness this in Europe, I am curious to see whether it will also manifest itself in the 

USA. 

You are right, there are periods in history where the traditional value of labor was eroded because gold lost 

value and therefore prices rose. 


[1295] Jason: graded A The Contradictions of Abstract Wealth and the Ridiculous 

Miser. The inner contradiction of abstract monetary wealth is that money is qualitatively 

unlimited, in that it can purchase any other use-value as the general equivalent. At the same 

time, money is quantitatively limited - as soon as a person tries to realize the qualitatively 

unlimited nature of money, they find they start running out of it. The miser attempts to defeat


this contradiction by trying to make money as unlimited quantitatively as it is qualitatively 

(Hans [2008fa:705]). 

The amusing this, however, is that in trying to defeat one contradiction, the miser personally 

plays out another. In order to become rich, the miser must make himself poor - he 

abstains from consumption. He ridiculously suffers poverty of use-values - real wealth - in 

order to grow his hoard of money - abstract wealth. 


[1338] DJB: The miser. As the miser tries to accumulate wealth and hoard money there 

is a contradiction in what he is doing. Money is an item that in a capitalist society can be 

exchanged for any good and only has a use value of exchange. The miser is accumulating an 

item that is socially dependent on its value. Goods have a certain use-value which gives them 

a certain exchange value and with money it has no inner real value but only a social value 

that is dependent upon social attitudes. The other contradiction is the fact that the miser is 

living in a capitalist society and is not accumulating wealth but hoarding away money that is 

not worth anything when he could be spending his money and buying goods that are worth 

something. The miser is caught up in a social paradox where money is seen as wealth when 

in reality he doesn’t understand use values in actual goods. 

Hans: in Marx’s theory, commodities do not get exchange-value from their use-values but from labor. Marx was 

writing about the gold standard, when money had value. 

Next Message by DJB is [1348].


[1437] MKW: A miser, who aims to amass great wealth while spending very little contradicts 

himself by placing such an enormous value on money and yet does not use it for the 

very purpose for which it was designed, as a general equivalent for exchange. The miser 

chooses to ignore that fact that while money has value as a universal medium of exchange 

for use-values, in and of itself as a piece of paper or as an entry on a ledger. Money will 

do nothing for the miser but add stuffing to his mattress. He builds for himself a poor existence 

and forgoes the use-values that he could utilize because he places a higher value on the 

quantity of money he accumulates, which would be depleted if he chose to indulge, rather 

than the quality of the thing as a universal medium of exchange. 

Hans: At Marx’s time money did have value. Also, in Marx’s theory, the original purpose of money is not means 

of exchange but measure of value. Yet the contradiction was present also in the world seen through Marx’s eyes. 


Exam Question 518 is 296 in 1999SP, 419 in 2004fa, 396 in 2005fa, 425 in 2007SP, 437 

in 2008fa, 453 in 2009fa, 490 in 2010fa, and 496 in 2011fa: 

Exam Question 518 Bring two examples of situations where money functions as money and 

not merely as measure of value or means of circulation. 

[1091] AJH: Money as money. Marx states that money seems to have the desire and 

ability to move, without the apparent goal or driving force. I agreed with [2010fa:587] when 

Cmellen points out the three ways that Marx tells how money can function as money and not


merely a measure of value or means of circulation. The three ways that Marx states money 

functions as money are; hoarding, means of payment, and world money. 

According to Marx, hording is storing up of money so that at a later time it can be used as 

the general incarnation of wealth and it does not have the negative meaning of unwillingness 

to share connected as the English hoarding does. Marx says that the circular movement 

of money stems from two antithetical metamorphoses between sale and purchase. Marx 

says that the movement of the metamorphoses can be interrupted and that as soon as the 

commodity owner no longer immediately supplements their sales with purchases, the means 

of circulation go from value to “money”. 

Another way that Marx states that money is money is by means of payment. Marx says 

that whoever holds the money and is considered the “buyer” is a mere representative of 

money, or rather the representative of future money. The example Marx gives was renting a 

house when you could rent and pay the rent at the end of the month. Marx says that sellers 

become a creditor, and buyers become the debtor and thus because the form of value has 

undergone a change here, money becomes means of payment. 

Hans: In order to properly explain the role of money as means of payments you have to say that this is the payment 

of a monetary debt after the commodities already have changed hands. For instance, if a business gets merchandise 

delivered and then pays the invoice, this is money as means of payment. In a cash purchase, money functions as 

means of circulation and not as money. 

Next Message by AJH is [1315].


[1114] Neela: graded A Money, Money, Money. I agree with both [2011fa:901] Danish 

and [2011fa:963] Karl from Fall 2011 when citing the example of money functioning as 

money in the international sphere—countries paying their debts to each other, deficits in 

import/export markets, etc. A second example of money functioning as money and not 

merely as measure of value or means of circulation would be when one has to pay for their 

student loan or even a mortgage—the money from the loan would have already been paid 

to the university for the tuition and the family would already be living in the house they’re 

paying the mortgage for. 


[1190] Elias: graded B+ Money as Money. The first example of money functioning 

purely as money is the buying and selling of foreign nation’s debt. This is purely a transaction 

of obtaining money in bonds or IOUs by purchasing that amount of debt. The second 

example would be student loans or a home mortgage. In that case the initial purchase of the 

house or education was done in advance by a financial institution. The loans itself is then a 

transfer of money by the borrower to the lending firm to make the debt back up. 

Hans: If you as a private investor use money to buy foreign government debt (or domestic government debt, or 

privately emitted bonds, or stocks), your money is a means of purchase, even though the commodity you are buying 

is an investment vehicle. This investment vehicle itself is not money. 

It is a different issue if a central bank does not get enough of a certain foreign currency by exports and therefore 

has to pay for a trade deficit so that imports from that foreign country can be continued. This money is used to 

transfer wealth from the domestic money form into the foreign money form. At Marx’s time it was done by shipping 

bullion to the foreign country.


In this case, the use of money as means of payments is much simpler than using money for cash purchases. Here 

is what would have to be done for cash purchases. In order to facilitate cash purchases in the foreign country, the 

central bank would have to ship some bullion from its vaults to the mint in the foreign country to have it converted 

into gold coin of that foreign country, then ship the gold coin back, so that domestic capitalists can make imports 

and pay for them by shipping the coins back to the foreign country. 

Shipping the same gold three times is wasteful. Instead, both imports and exports are made on credit and only 

if they do not balance out are shipments of gold necessary to cancel the debt. Nowadays it is rarely shipments of 

gold, it is also not shipments of paper dollars, but foreign sales of treasury bonds to a foreign central bank which 

holds them as currency reserves (and may or may not issue domestic currency because it has more reserves now). 


[1235] Alee: One example is paying a student loan or a house mortgage. You are living in 

the house already bought but you’re still paying for it. Second example is a country paying 

its debt for the imports/export that they have made. 


[1269] Smalls: A savings account would be money as money. You are storing your money 

in a savings account not to measure value or for means of circulation, but just as money. A 

bribe would also be money as money. The person asking for the bribe wants nothing more 

than to receive the money. 

Hans: The act of depositing money into a savings account or withdrawing it from a savings account is a transaction 

in which money functions as money. It is the modern counterpart to using money as a hoard. 

In some countries with poorly developed tax collection systems, bribes are used to finance government services. 

The bribe necessary to get a passport, is that money as money or as means of circulation? 

Next Message by Smalls is [1270].


[1274] Shickadance: graded A One example of where money functions simply as money 

and not a measure of value is when the United States pays off a debt to Germany. Another 

example is when Person A pays off a loan to a bank which he had received to purchase a 

car. In these examples, the creditor is receiving payment on the things which the debtor is 

already using and enjoying. Money is not measuring value or being a means a of circulation; 

it is only functioning as money. 

Hans: Yes. Money is not measuring value because the price was agreed on when the good was ordered. 


[1285] Littlerock: graded A+ Money as Money. Money functions as money when it is 

being used as a hoard. In that case, money is not being circulated, it is in its pure value form. 

Money is also being used as money when it is used to pay interest on a debt. 

Hans: Interest payment is a good example, and I don’t remember it in the archives. When money is used to pay 

taxes it is also used as money. 

Next Message by Littlerock is [1286]. 

[1331] Gunther: graded C One of example of using money as money and not merely as a 

measure of value would be if I wanted to buy a new car I couldn’t trade 1,000 blankets for it 

even if it carried the same exchange value. Therefore, you would have to use the money in 

order to purchase the car and not make a trade for it. Also, there are people who buy houses 

under the market rates and fix them up to sell them and make a profit. Meanwhile, there 

are families in need of shelter that just buy a home to live in and keep for their own use and 

survival instead of the self-interested capitalist mindset of ‘getting gain.’


Hans: If you were to buy the car or the house with cash, then money would not serve as money but only as means 

of circulation. In the more common case that you buy them on credit, money serves as measure of value at closing 

when you obligate yourself to the terms of the mortgage, and as money in every mortgage payment. The question 

whether the purchase M-C is part of C-M-C or M-C-M does not matter here. 


[1347] Speq: The first is when people hoard. Hoarders are not circulating money, but 

are instead, gaining utility from the use value of money. I.e. they find satisfaction in having 

money. The second is when money (namely gold) is melted down and converted to use 

value. I.e. converted into jewelry, dinner utensils, ornaments, etc. 

Hans: When a gold coin is melted down in order to be used for jewelry, then it is not used as money but as a 

natural use-value. (This is a different use-value than the use-value of knowing one can purchase anything with 

money, which Marx would call the “formal” use-value of money.) 


[1382] Amcelhiney: 1) Monetary payment to settle a debt after the merchandise has 

already changed hands. 

2) Hoarding the money—not to increase its value over a long period of time, but simply 

not to use it. 

Hans: Penalty for editing your answer. You are required to type in your answers of the designated exam questions 

without editing them. 

You had originally “after the payment has already changed hands.” I changed it to make it correct. 

Next Message by Amcelhiney is [1403].


[1385] ZachS: graded C 1. When it’s used to purchase a commodity such as gold because 

gold is the measure of value outside of any currency. 

2. When purchasing items needed for everyday living. 

Hans: In both examples money does not function as money. 


Exam Question 528 is 197 in 1995WI, 176 in 1995ut, 210 in 1996sp, 227 in 1997WI, 280 

in 1997ut, 299 in 1999SP, 317 in 2000fa, 336 in 2001fa, 380 in 2003fa, 425 in 2004fa, 

432 in 2007SP, 443 in 2008fa, 459 in 2009fa, 496 in 2010fa, and 506 in 2011fa: 

Exam Question 528 Give examples for “advancing” and “expending” money. 

[1072] Agloeck: Example of advancing and expending money. If I buy a car at what 

I feel is a good “deal” with the intention of selling it again quickly at a profit then I am 

advancing money. I am trying to increase my hoard through the purchase and sale of a 

commodity. On the other hand, if I purchase a car to use as my primary vehicle then I am 

expending money. 

Hans: Good example. But I would be very cautious in the judgment whether a car is really a good deal. Gas prices 

have to go up, and there will be other disincentives for cars with low gas mileage (such as higher registration fees). 

Cars which seem cheap today will turn out to be expensive in the future, the only question is whether this future is 

next year or five years from now. 

Next Message by Agloeck is [1082].


[1085] Shelly: graded A– M-C-M, advancing money. An example of “advancing” or 

“expending” money would be a capitalist purchasing the means of production and the commodity 

labor-power in order to produce products which will be sold for more than the capitalist 

pays in wages, thus realizing a profit. Another example would be if I purchased a pair 

of used shoes, polished them up, and then sold them for more than what I originally paid. 

Hans: Both are examples for “advancing” money. Marx reserves the word “expending” money for spending money 

for final consumption, where the money does not come back with a profit. 


[1245] PJM: Advancing Versus Expending. Advancing money is the term used for 

exchanging money for a product with the intention to sell the product for more money. 

A classic example of advancing money is the capitalist performing M-C-M’, who throws 

money into exchange for labor power with the intention of getting more money M’, out of 

the exchanging. Expending money, on the other hand, involves exchanging money in order 

to get a product that one intends to consume, such as buying a house in order to live in. 


[1310] Frankie: graded A Advancing money is when you buy a commodity or good with 

the intention of selling it for a profit. In light of the Hostess Brand recently going bankrupt, 

an example would be buying a box of twinkies with the intention of selling them again at a 

profit.


Expending money is purchasing something for final consumption. An example that goes 

along with the previous example would be buying a box of twinkies and eating them for 

personal utility and consumption. 


[1312] Agloeck: Examples of money. I gave the following example in the mailing list 

and I will use it again here. If I purchase a car from my friend at below market value with the 

intent to sell it quickly in order to make a profit then I am advancing money. If I purchase the 

same car for my own use as my primary vehicle then I am expending money. After reading 

your comment I agree that I would need to take into account gas prices to evaluate whether 

the car is actually a “deal”. 

In case it is not okay to repeat myself, I have another real life example. My friend goes to 

baby clothing stores and buys sale items then immediately sells them on ebay for more than 

she paid. That is advancing money. If she was buying the clothes for her own child to wear 

then that would be expending money. 


[1377] Roosty: An example of “advancing” money would be to purchase an ipod off of 

Ebay for a good (relatively speaking) deal, and then to sell it for profit. “Expending” money 

would be buying the ipod off Ebay for my own personal use. 

Next Message by Roosty is [1381].


[1398] SLOVENEC: Advancing money is the process of buying a commodity for the 

purpose of reselling it for a higher price. In essence, you are buying more money. An 

example of this is buying a house, waiting a few months, and then reselling it at a price 

higher than you paid. Expending money is the process of spending money for consumption. 

An example of this is selling a chair to earn money that will be spent to feed your family 

that night. 


[1400] IrwinFletcher: graded A An example of advancing money would be if we were 

to buy motorcycles and then turn around and sell them for more money than I bought them 

for, in order to make a profit. Expending money would be if I bought a house with the sole 

purpose to live in it and use it the way that it should be. 


[1414] GTIguy: Advancing money is the process of spending money with the intent on 

realizing a return. An example of this would be buying a home in order to fix it up and sell it 

for a profit in the future. Expending money is when money is spent without ever expecting 

a return. A good example of expending money is purchasing food. We buy food in order to 

survive but it eventually gets consumed and its value is lost. 

Hans: You are not allowed to re-write your answers to the designated exam questions. 


[1420] Novatore: Marx outlays advancing money as the process of M-C-M’. In this 

process I am advancing my money by purchasing a commodity and then selling it at a higher


value. For example, I buy ten pounds of socks for twenty-four dollars and then sell them 

for thirty dollars. Expending money is the process by which a commodity is purchased for 

its use value alone, or the M-C portion of the C-M-C process. Buying rain boots so my feet 

won’t get wet is an example of expending money. 


[1423] Tiburon: -Advancing money can be done by re-investing the money into commodities 

or activities that would lead to a future return. By advancing the money, we take it 

further to another plane to get a profit. 

- Expending money is done when money is used to buy commodities that have no useful 

value or profit. 

Hans: Your definition of expending money is wrong. (And you were asked to give examples, not definitions.) 


[1428] Vini: One example for “advancing” versus “expending” money would be when 

stock is purchased. You advance money when profit is made when stock is bought at a lower 

price and then sold at a higher value. Profit is made for the purchaser because more money 

went back them then what was sent out. Expending would be when the buyer sits on the 

stock and no immediate sale is made ie, investment. 

Hans: Even if the stock is sold at a loss or not immediately sold again, its purchase is still an advance of money. 

Expending money would be for consumption. 

Next Message by Vini is [1429].


Question 540 In the exchange process, it is clearly the objective of the traders to get as 

much in return for their commodity as possible. Likewise, it is clearly the objective of the 

capitalists to get as much return on their capital as possible. Nevertheless Marx analyzes the 

exchange as an equalization and abstracts from the quantitative differences, while his analysis 

of the circuit of capital explicitly takes the quantitative differences into consideration. 

Is this unequal methodology justified, or does it bias Marx’s results? 

[886] Jason: graded A+ Marx is More Interested in Social Relations than Individual 

Motivations. The initial methodology with which Marx analyses the circulation of commodities 

and the circulation of capital are not unequal. He begins by looking at the practical 

actions (from which he makes inferences about motivations) of the agents participating in 

the process, and through an examination of the forms of circulation, he attempts to make 

inferences about the content of the social relations enabling and necessitating these actions. 

Marx is really interested in social processes, not individual actions, and this is clear from the 

beginning (he examines a capitalist society) of his investigation. His focus on social rather 

than individual content for his examination of circulation processes is consistent and justified. 

While the practical actions of both the traders and the capitalists may be similar in that 

both try to maximize their returns (motivations), the social content of exchange differs from 

the social content of capital - a discovery made from an investigation of the complete form 

of both commodity circulation and the circuit of capital.


The contradictions of direct barter are given room to move in the exchange process, the 

circulation of commodities. Individuals are looking both for social recognition of the value 

of their own commodity, as well as a particular use-value to satisfy their consumption needs. 

This contradiction breaks apart the direct barter transaction into two separate transactions, 

and causes a commodity to change forms as it moves through the circulation process. It 

moves from a non-use-value form to a value-form and finally to an immediate-use-value 

form. The content of this process, the social function it fulfills is “the transfer of the goods 

from those who produce them to those who use them (akmk, pg. 358).” These forms abstract 

from quantities, because quantity is not necessary to determine the form a commodity takes 

in this process. Marx admits there may be differences in the magnitudes of values, but (in 

case we had forgotten his previous developments in Chapter 1) “such differences are purely 

accidental (akmk, pg. 252:1).” Further, these abnormalities do not affect the content of the 

social relations driving the exchange. The most important thing, from the perspective of 

social relations, is that commodities that are qualitatively different are exchanged - a process 

made possible by their quantitative equality that sustains the division of labor in capitalism. 

Accidental quantitative differences of value are irrelevant. In addition, Marx has already 

explained in the section on the secret of the fetish-like character of the commodity that the 

motivations of the traders to maximize their returns only reinforce the social relation of equal 

value in exchange.


In a similar examination of the circulation of capital, Marx comes to a different conclusion. 

The individual agents in this case are using money to purchase a commodity, which 

they then use to purchase money. He first abstracts from quantities to determine the forms 

of the M-C-M process. But when he tries to make inferences about the social content of 

M-C-M from its forms, it seems to be empty and meaningless. Money is replaced by money. 

No qualitative change occurred. But “M-C-M is too prevalent not to have a social content 

(akmk, pg. 358).” Marx’s original attempt to probe deeper levels of reality beyond the surface 

actions of the individuals was unsuccessful with an abstraction from quantities. He 

must swim back to the surface and acknowledge quantitative differences, for the individuals 

would not engage in M-C-M at all if not for the quantitative difference. This has a direct 

impact on the social content. Also, since the M-C-M’ process ends where it started, with 

money and not consumption, the process is endless. The measure of value of capital is able 

to, and must expand endlessly. The motivations of the capitalist become fused with the content 

of this circulation process. A social relation, capital, now acts through an agent, the 

capitalist. Marx says in the capitalist capital is “personified and endowed with a will (akmk, 

pg. 254:1).” 

Since Marx is not immediately interested in individuals and their motivations, but in the 

content of social relations, he must abstract from quantitative differences in value in the 

exchange. But the individual motivations (the valorization of capital) of the capitalist are 

fused with the social content of capital, making quantitative abstraction impossible.


Marx loved inversions and I wonder if it tickled him the content of the process C-M-C 

owes its content to an exchange of commodities that is quantitatively equal but qualitatively 

different, while the process M-C-M owes its content to a process that is only quantitatively 

different at both its “M-poles.” 

Hans: Marx was certainly aware of this inversion: qualitative difference and quantiative equality versu quantitative 

difference and qualitative equality. He considered the circulation of capital to be the negation of the simple 

circulation of commodities. 


[1151] Diego: graded A When we review the exchange process in detail with Marx he 

makes it clear that we must consider the dual nature of value when we exchange goods. 

Parties may both gain in an exchange as they are both looking to trade to get a different 

use-value from what they had before the trade. In terms of use-value each party should gain 

more in the exchange then they started with. When we then look at a commodity’s value, it 

is a zero-sum game as no new value can be created in exchange, even in the case where an 

exchange is uneven no new value is created, but value is transferred. (Hans, [2005fa:1791].) 

Marx has made this clear in the study of surplus-value that value is only created via labor 

exploitation in the production process and not in exchange. 


[1157] Curtis: graded A+ Different exchange processes. The unequal methodology is 

justified. In the exchange process, such as C-M-C, the end result is C-C, and it is use-value 

that is that is desired, and can be justified on grounds other than maximization of value. The


capital circuit, M-C-M, ends in the same form, M-M, and cannot be justified unless there is 

a difference in the first M and the second M (so we could say M’ = M + ∆M), so quantity in 

M-C-M’ is an important factor, otherwise there would be no reason to participate. 

Next Message by Curtis is [1159]. 

[1337] KapitalSB: graded C The method during the exchange process is getting as much 

as possible from their commodity. This unequal method is justified because the value one 

receives from one commodity is different then the value another receives. Marx analyzes 

the exchange as equal is different then Marx analysis of circuit of capital because of the removal 

of quantitative differences during the exchange. Marx is not interested in individual’s 

motivations but is interested in social relations. 

Hans: You are confusing value and use-value. 


[1500] Bear: graded C– The unequal methodology is justified in the sense that there 

are two separate objectives in mind. By analyzing the exchange process and looking at 

it as an equalization, Marx can look at the other factors which affect value: costs, labor 

requirements, and other aspects of production which give a commodity their value without 

regard for profit maximization. Although in his analysis of the circuit of capital, he examines 

the quantitative differences to examine motivations and methods behind profit maximization. 

The specifics remain the same but the perspective of the observation is changed. 

Hans: According to Marx’s theory, value is one-dimensional. It does not depend on costs and other aspects of 

production, it only depends on the abstract labor that was used to produce the commodity.


Marx would disagree with the characterization that he looks at the exchange as an equalization in order to derive 

what value is. He sees his analysis as the discovery of the principles underlying commodity production which has 

the result that the underlying driver is congealed abstract labor, the thing he calls “value.” 

Marx considers the personal enrichment motive of the capitalists important, but it is by no means the full 

explanation of capitalism. Capitalism is a social relation deeply anchored in the one-dimensional character of 

wealth in commodity production. In order to overcome it, market relations must be replaced by other economic 

institutions organizing production and distribution. 


Exam Question 573 is 307 in 1998WI, 341 in 2000fa, 359 in 2001fa, 391 in 2002fa, 405 

in 2003fa, 454 in 2004fa, 431 in 2005fa, 463 in 2007SP, 467 in 2007fa, 474 in 2008SP, 

477 in 2008fa, and 549 in 2011fa: 

Exam Question 573 Is exchange (direct barter) a transaction in which both sides gain more 

than they give up? 

[897] Amcelhiney: If there is equality among exchange one side gains no more than the 

other. Only in use-value might one side gain more than the other. Any sort of advantage or 

profit cannot be created with the exchange. 

Hans: Marx’s definition of an equal exchange is not that both sides gain equally, but that neither side gains or 

loses, i.e. both sides come out even. 

In preparation of the second exam, everyone should be familiar with answer [2005fa:1791] to this question. 



[1132] Pepe: graded B Exchange is a transaction where both sides gain more than they 

lose, if it wasn’t either party would not participate in the exchange. Different parties have 

different needs and use-values, thus exchange can be optimal for both sides. 

Hans: Both gain only in terms of use-value, not in terms of value. 


[1145] Abysmal: graded B– Exchange is not a transaction in which both sides gain more 

than they give up. This is a neo-classical interpretation of trade that assumes that both 

sides gain more marginal utility from the transaction. However, Marx’s theory is not based 

around marginal utility, but rather value, and it would be impossible for both sides to gain 

more value from an exchange. In the Marxian conception of an exchange, participants by 

nature typically trade commodities of equal values (meaning that they required the same 

socially necessary labor time and the same amount of congealed abstract labor in order to 

produce). Therefore, exchanging leaves each side with the same amount of value, but in 

forms of use-values that are more useful to them. 

Hans: It is a big misunderstanding of Marx to think that people like to trade equal values, or that this is fair 

or “natural” to them. Values are immanent in the commodities, they are created in production, not in exchange. 

Therefore an exchange will not increase the values of the goods exchanged, and if one gets more value out of the 

exchange this is because the other gets less value. 


[1148] ImmanentMaterialist: An exchange (also understood as a direct barter) is, by 

definition, a transaction in which neither party gains or loses any of the value that they


possessed before the occurrence of the exchange. So in regards to the above question, no, 

neither party would gain (or for that matter lose) and value in the exchange. 

Hans: A complete answer also looks at the use-value aspect of it. 

Regarding values, it is very possible that unequal values are exchanged. In this case, one person gains what the 

other person loses. 

Next Message by ImmanentMaterialist is [1149]. 

[1164] Stig: test resubmission. Yes. Hans states that direct barter, or exchange, is a 

“zero sum” transaction, as far as value is concerned. However, for use value both parties are 

‘giving up’ a commodity for which they do not have use for one that they do. We expect that 

if both parties did not gain use values from the exchange that they wouldn’t do it! Therefore 

neither party loses (on an aggregate level) exchange value but both gain use value. 


[1170] SVN: Yes. Each side is out to gain more than they gave up, otherwise a trade would 

not take place if each side ended up the exact way at which they started. For example, the 

linen weaver who has linen coming out her ears has no use value for so much linen. To her 

these is nothing to be gained by weaving more of what she doesn’t need, so she takes it to 

market to trade up for something she values more. Winter is coming and she has no coat, os 

she trades however much linen she has to, to gain a coat from the tailor. In the linen weaver’s 

eyes she has gained more than she has given up, for she badly needed the new coat, and all 

she had to do was give up some of her linen that does not mean much to her. The coat tailor 

who has been selling tons of coats for winter needs more linen to make more coats to keep up


with the pace of the quickly selling coats. So in the tailor’s eyes he gained something more 

valuable to him because more linen signifies more coats he can make to keep his business 

running. 

Hans: But in terms of value, it is a zero sum game, i.e., what one gains the other loses. 


[1177] RikkiAllie: The exchange has to be beneficial to both parties. They must both be 

gaining a commodity or value that they previously were not able to obtain. 

Hans: Yes, but terms of value, i.e., in terms of their access to society’s wealth, exchange is a zero sum game. 


[1186] Villa: graded A The exchange-value of the commodities are equal otherwise they 

couldn’t be exchanged. However, in use-value they both, the persons making the exchange, 

gain from the use-values they receive. 


[1213] KATES: Exchange at direct barter is a transaction where both sides gain a commodity 

of need to them. In an exchange one person is giving up something that does not 

have as much value to them as it does to the person they are exchanging with and in return 

they are receiving something back that has value to them. 

Hans: What you call “value,” Marx would call “use-value,” while “value” for Marx has an entirely different meaning. 

When reading Marx you must use his terminology, otherwise it gets too confusing. 



[1219] Reeree: Exchange is a transaction in which both sides gain more; otherwise the 

exchange would have no purpose. Each individual desires something that the other person 

has, so an exchange will take place. In the end, the individuals have the commodity they 

desire and have traded something else that had less value to them. 

Hans: In this class you shouldd not use the word “value” if you are talking about what Marx would call “use-value.” 

If we read Marx we must use his terminology. 


[1256] Tim: graded A Is possible in terms of use-value, being that levels of need and 

desire vary. This ought not be true in terms of the exchange value of the things, as the 

exchange is under a condition of equalization. 

Hans: Even if unequal values are exchanged, it is not possible for both parties to gain value, since value is neither 

created nor destroyed by exchange. 


[1308] Extraterrestrial: graded C Direct Barter is not a transaction in which both sides 

gain more than they give up. Everything, at the end of the barter, should be a wash. Each 

party is gaining something, some kind of use value but each party is also losing something 

that they trade with. Both parties definitely benefit but neither party gains. They come out 

equal. 

Hans: This contradictory situation that both sides benefit but it is a wash can be sorted out if you use the right 

categories. 

Next Message by Extraterrestrial is [1309].


[1368] Batgirl: An exchange, or a direct barter if you will, is not a transaction in which 

each side gains more than they give up. A bolt of fabric is worth the same to a tailor as it 

is to a weaver, same with the value of a coat to a tailor and a weaver. They may barter it 

for something that they personally value more in their minds, however on the makrket it is 

worth typically what it is bartered for. 

Hans: You have to distinguish between use-value and exchange-value in order to give a coherent answer. 


[1431] Tony: graded B– No, the direct barter would gain an exchange equally. There is 

no more or less on a direct barter. The thing is that the value or use-value are equal except 

for the quantity that they exchange, i.e, 20 yards of linen equal a coat 

Hans: Instead of writig “value or use-value” you should have distinguished between value and use-value because 

the answer is different for value than for use-value. 


[1460] Steve: Yes. All parties in an exchange supposedly have a goal to maximize their 

profit, and one would assume that if one party were to incur any loss in an exchange, acting 

as a rational agent, they would not participate in said exchange. 

Hans: Wrong answer. Profit is defined in terms of value. Exchange does not create value. The gains of all partners 

in an exchange are gains in use-value, not in value. 

Message [1460] referenced by [1483]. Next Message by Steve is [1461]. 

Question 591 is 415 in 2003fa, 465 in 2004fa, 443 in 2005fa, 481 in 2007fa, 491 in 

2008fa, and 566 in 2011fa:


Question 591 Why does Marx say at the and of chapter Five: “hic Rhodus, hic salta”? 

[895] SVN: Exploited. The reference to the story from Aesop’s Fable is not only fitting 

for the conclusion of the chapter but also is a perfect cliffhanger, leaving the reader wanting 

more. The entire chapter Marx continues to describe situations in which surplus-value cannot 

be created inside or outside of circulation. Page after page the reader twists and turns 

the mind to come up with an explanation of how profit through commodity exchange can 

actually be created. Finally when the end of the chapter is approaching and the reader thinks 

that Marx will reveal the secret behind profit, he tells the story of the braggart, continuing 

the frustration. 

He does this because the vast majority of people are not sure how capital all around them 

is being created. They know it is happening, but they do not know how it is taking place 

because they have never seen it with their own eyes. Just like the braggart, who claimed he 

had made an immense jump in Rhodes and someone replied to him “hic Rhodus, hic Salta.” 

They were saying that “here” is no different than Rhodes and he should do the jump here 

in front of them. They said not because they didn’t believe he could do it, but because they 

wanted to see for themselves how it was actually done. The braggart performing the jump 

in this secret place called Rhodes is the same thing as the capitalist performing his profit 

churning athletics in private, keeping everyone in the dark as to what is actually happening. 

The commodity producing society and the supposed egalitarian structure of it, conceal the


exploitation of the worker. If the worker was not being exploited, there would not be such 

large profits. The capitalist goes against nature. His sole aim is to make money, he uses 

money to make more money, which was not the original intent of money. 

Steeveegett [2008fa:754] phrases nicely what I am getting at when he says 

“capitalism seeks to hide the process through which value is made into 

more value—and it does it well. It is happy to show what it produced, yet 

reluctant to show us how. It doesn’t want people to know that this value 

is created from exploitation. Nor does it want me or you to know that our 

labor produces an exponentially higher value than we are paid.” 


[1344] Speq: Marx uses the phrase “Hic Rhodes, hic salta” (“Rhodes is here, Jump here”) 

to show that his point is shown now. The context Marx pulled the quote from is a story of 

a man that says he could jump to Rhodes and that he could produce witnesses. A listener 

to his story says “Hic Rhodes, hic salta” which implies that he does not need witnesses, as 

he should be able to jump to Rhodes now to prove his point. The Annotations points out 

many differences between this story and the points Marx is making. (1) The capitalist isn’t 

pretending to be able to “jump to Rhodes”. He can jump, and we know because (2) the 

evidence is all around us. (3) In the story Rhodes is a faraway place, whereas the capitalist 

is doing it before our eyes. We just don’t know how. And finally, (4) we are not asking the


capitalist to do anything differently. We are the ones that need to change the way we look at 

things to better understand how the world works. 


Exam Question 596 is 571 in 2011fa: 

Exam Question 596 What is the difference between the value of labor-power and the value 

created by labor-power? 

[1102] AndyUte: graded A Labor Power. Labor-power’s value comes from the amount 

of labor-time needed to produce and reproduce itself. Labor-power creates value if it is used 

to produce a use-value that can be sold. The value created by labor-power will always exceed 

the value of labor-power so that capitalists can continue to take advantage of laborers and 

make profits. 

Hans: Very good, but keep the causality straight in your last sentence. If the value of labor-power is not smaller 

than the value created by this labor-power then capitalists will not hire that person. 


[1187] Jason: graded A Value of Labor-power and Value Created by Labor-power. 

The value of labor-power is the value of all the commodities required to sustain a worker at 

a given standard of living, at a given place and at a given time. Labor-power creates value if 

it is used to produce a use-value that can be sold. If the value of a worker’s labor power is not 

less than the value created by the consumption of this worker’s labor-power, then capitalists 

will not hire this worker.



[1289] Kannon: The value of labor power is the amount necessitated to reproduce itself 

(so daily amount/hour). The value created by labor power is the value created for the capitalist 

in excess of labor power ( the amount that does not show up on the paycheck, so to 

speak). This is a major part of the mystification of wages Marx discusses and a demiurge of 

the exploitative relation between workers and capitalists. 

Hans: Labor-power also creates the value that does show up on the pay check. But the difference between the 

value of labor-power and the value created by labor does not show up on the pay check. 

I also don’t understand your parenthesis “daily amount/hour.” 


[1303] JohnLennon: Marx would say that there is no value in labor-power because value 

lies in the commodity itself. The commodity is a tangible item with value whether it be usevalue 

or exchange-value or both. A commodity is produced by labor-power creating value 

in that commodity. Labor itself is not a commodity, a commodity is a good with use-value 

that can be used physically by a person. Value is in the tangible item, not in the intangible 

labor. 

Hans: Labor is not a commodity, but labor-power is. 


[1351] DJB: How the capitalist makes its profit. The value of labor power is the amount 

of labor put into a commodity, to be able to re-produce that same commodity. The value


created by labor power is the amount that is able to be sold. The capitalist will always want 

there to be a difference so he can continue to own the rights of production and be profitable. 


[1369] Ula: Labor-Power. The “value of labor-power” is a commodity sold by an individual 

to a capitalist. The “value created by labor-power” is much greater than the “value of 

labor-power” in that it includes the surplus labor performed to produce a commodity. 


[1390] Brie: The value of labor-power is determined by the amount of labor-time required 

to produce a commodity, whereas labor-power creates value if it produces something with a 

use-value which can be sold. 

Hans: Wrong definition of value of labor-power. 


[1436] MKW: The value of labor power is the wage which a worker is paid, while the 

value created by labor power is the price of the final good that the capitalist captures as a 

result of the worker’s labor when the commodity is sold. 


[1448] Jess: graded B Difference between value of labor-power and value created by 

labor-power. Value of labor-power is how much your labor is worth to a capitalist. If you 

are a more efficient worker, your labor-power is worth more. You are able to produce more 

profit (commodities) for the capitalist, because you are able to shorten the amount of labor 

time required for producing the commodity.


The value created by labor-power is the amount of extra “worth” you give to a commodity 

by producing it. Going back to my lumber vs. diamonds example in [1441], diamonds 

are worth more because they require more labor power to produce. The labor-power is 

essentially what creates the value of diamonds. 

Hans: What you call “value of labor-power,” Marx would call its use-value to the capitalist. The labor-power does 

not have any direct use-value to the worker (other than a means of exchange) because he or she does not have access 

to the means of production. 


Exam Question 600 is 247 in 1997WI, 321 in 1999SP, 374 in 2001fa, 422 in 2003fa, 450 

in 2005fa, 482 in 2007SP, and 574 in 2011fa: 

Exam Question 600 Chapter Six is not the first place where labor-power is discussed. 

Where was labor-power introduced first, and which role did it play then? But the discussion 

of labor-power in chapter Six introduces one fundamental new aspect of it which was not 

discussed before. What is it? 

[1113] Neela: graded A Labor-Power’s Roles. Although Chapter Six discusses laborpower, 

it is not where it was introduced first. Labor-power was first introduced in Chapter 

One. It played the role of the expenditure of physical human labor-power as the value in 

commodity production. However, in Chapter Six it is discussed in the role of a commodity. 

Message [1113] referenced by [1118]. Next Message by Neela is [1114].


[1128] Justin: Labor power was first introduced in Chapter One in terms of its contribution 

to the exchange-value of the commodity. In Chapter Six it is discussed in terms of its 

role as a commodity itself. 

Hans: Labor-power contributes to the value of the commodity, and this value is expressed in the exchange-value 

of the commodity. This is a two-step process, these steps should not be collapsed. 


[1140] Shelly: graded A– Labor-Power. Labor-power was first introduced in Chapter 1 as 

the expenditure of human labor-power and the source of all value. In Chapter 6, labor-power 

is now discussed as a commodity, which the capitalist buys in order to generate surplus value. 

Hans: Your first sentence needs reformulation, perhaps say: “Labor-power was first introduced in Chapter 1, 

where Marx showed that the the expenditure of human labor-power is the source of all value.” See [2005fa:1134] 

for another formulation I can recommend. 


[1154] Diego: graded A Labor power was first discussed early in the book in Chapter 2 

as Marx was discussing the commodity. As this early point labor-power was only discussed 

as an input to the creation of commodities, that is, the laborers used their labor-power to 

create labor value as a part of a commodity’s value. Chapter 6 introduced the purchase of 

labor-power by the capitalist via payment of a wage. The purchase of labor-power by the 

capitalist and not labor-value is fundamental to worker exploitation. 

First Message by Diego is [16].


[1156] Curtis: graded A Labor-Power. Labor-power was first introduced in chapter one. 

It was introduced as the common denominator between all commodities, allowing them to be 

related to each other. Value in all commodities is how much congealed abstract human laborpower 

the commodity contains. Chapter six now introduces labor-power as a commodity 

itself that can also be bought or sold by workers and capitalists. 


[1194] EricR: Labor-Power was first introduced on pages 131-134, (these pages are from 

Vol.1, not the blue binder book in class) when labor value was introduced or talked about. 

Chapter 6 in the form of M-C-(M+∆M) (∆ meaning surplus value). Labor-Power made 

this possible. 


[1227] Carol: Labor power is first introduced in Chapter Three. The role it played then 

was to measure the commodity’s value. The new idea introduced is that of necessary labor. 


[1318] AJH: New aspect of labor power. Labor power was first discussed when Marx 

talked about child labor and focused effort. The fundamental new aspect here is that labor 

power creates value. 

Next Message by AJH is [1320].


[1335] KapitalSB: graded C In chapter 3, labor power was first introduced as the labor 

that the wage earner sells to the capitalist, but in chapter 6 it discuss labor power as the labor 

used by the capitalist. 

Hans: The worker does not sell his labor, he sells his labor-power. 


[1453] Jag: Labor power was first introduced in Chapter One. Marx did not call it “labor 

power,” it just played a behind the scenes role whenever commodity production is talked 

about. Abstract human labor in commodity production is the expenditure of human labor 

power. The difference in Chapter Six is that labor power itself is a commodity. 

Hans: When I wrote “behind the scenes” in [2005fa:1134], I did not mean to say that it was not called “laborpower.” 

The main category of interest in chapter One was abstract human labor, which was defines as “expenditure 

of human labor-power.” “Labor-power was “behind the scenes” because it was needed for the definition of abstract 

human labor which took center stage in the discussion. 


[1472] Skylerp: Labor-power was first introduced in chapter 1. From chapter 1 labor 

power was related to the actual human effort put forth to produce a commodity. This explaination 

helped Marx relate labor-power with value of that specific commodity. In chapter 

six he talks about labor-power to help explain relative surplus labor and how we derive it. 

He also relates labor-power to necessary labor to help explain the difference between labor 

power and labor value. 

Hans: Relative surplus-labor is introduced in chapter Twelve. Chapter Six introduced labor-power as a commodity 

and the difference between the value of labor-power and the value created by the consumption of labor-power.



[1493] Chris: Labor-power was first discussed in Chapter 1. There, it was discussed as 

labor. In Chapter 6, labor-power is introduced as a commodity. 

Hans: Labor-power is not labor. 


[1503] Bear: graded C Labor power was introduced when referring to labor in general. 

We examined the aspects of labor including labor power to signify that labor power could 

be used to explain value in a commodity. The value transferred into a commodity by the 

labor to produce it. The new aspect is bargaining power or the impact of labor on capital and 

profits. We are discussing the same labor power from a new angle as its effect on production. 

Hans: Bargaining power is only an issue if you talk about commodities. The new aspect is that labor-power is a 

commodity. 

First Message by Bear is [645]. 

Question 611 is 281 in 1996sp, 328 in 1998WI, 419 in 2002fa, 435 in 2003fa, 485 in 

2004fa, 462 in 2005fa, 494 in 2007SP, 499 in 2007fa, 506 in 2008SP, 509 in 2008fa, 532 

in 2009fa, and 569 in 2010fa: 

Question 611 Which two sets of conditions must be satisfied for labor-power to be a commodity? 

[902] IrwinFletcher: graded A As I was kicking this idea in my head I thought that 

there could be several different conditions to satisfy labor power to be a commodity. But


what Marx is looking for is to boil all of it down and get down to the root of labor power, to 

encapsulate the very essence of labor power and commodities. I have come to the conclusion 

that the components to satisfy labor power into a commodity are as follows: 

1. The laborer must be inclined to sale his labor power and not his product from his 

labor power. There is a huge difference between the two things. [2009fa:671] Urka said 

“the laborer selling labor power must be separated from at least one portion of the labor 

process as well as the means of production, for if they were involved with the entirety of the 

production process they would be selling the commodity rather than their labor power”. I 

agree with this because if they sold the product of the labor power then that would eliminate 

the necessity of selling labor power. 

2. There must be no strings attached to the labor power. The laborer should be free to 

do as he pleases when it comes to the subject of the labor power. Setting prices, terms and 

conditions of contracts, duration of time etc. 


[1140.1] Basil: Two Conditions for Labor-Power. The two set of conditions that must 

be satisfied for labor-power to be a commodity are: 1) Freedom of the laborer to sell his or 

her labor-power, 1a) Laborers must be the sole seller of their labor power, 1b) The laborer 

must have free disposal to use their labor-power, 1c) The seller and buyer of labor-power 

must be legally equal, 1d) The worker must sell themselves only for limited periods of time 

(they can’t sell themselves into slavery). 2) The laborer can only sell their labor-power but


not the products of their labor, 2a) The laborer must be deprived of access to pre-existing 

products, 2b) The laborer must be deprived of having things to consume before producing, 

2c) The laborer cannot benefit from their labor-power until the product of their labor is sold 

(Annotations P. 410). If the above two conditions were not necessary, then laborers could 

produce value for themselves and reap the rightful benefits. 

If the question had mistakenly been read “What set of conditions must be satisfied for 

labor-power to become, or be turned into, a commodity?” then the following answers would 

be relevant: 1) Labor-power must be consumed through a means of production. 2) Laborpower 

must create value in the form of an exchangeable use-value. Because labor power is a 

commodity, it must be consumed to create value as a commodity, and this can only be done 

through a means of production–because the capitalists control the means of production, laborers 

are forced to rent their labor-power to them in order to expend it for creation of value. 

For labor-power to become a commodity, it must produce something that is exchangeable–if 

a use-value is not exchangeable, then it is not a commodity. 

Next Message by Basil is [1141.1]. 

[1201] Gladwell: graded A Free To and Free From. The first condition that must be 

satisfied for labor-power to be a commodity is that the laborer must be free to choose whether 

or not to sell the labor-power. She must be the one selling her own labor, and it must be done 

for a finite period of time [2010fa:827].


The second condition that must be satisfied is that the laborer must be free from the 

means of production. The laborer cannot be selling the actual product, but must instead sell 

her labor-power to the capitalist. If the laborer was able to sell the final product, she would 

earn more profit, and do that instead [2009fa:1067]. 


[1228] AndyUte: graded A– Firstly, the laborer must be in the business of selling his 

labor-power and freely choose to do so. He must not be coerced or made to do so. Secondly, 

the laborer must not be looking to use his labor-power to produce a commodity. He must 

rely and be dependent on the capitalist and his means of production. 

Hans: Marx would say: even if there is no formal coercion, the workers are coerced by their social situation. This 

aspect of Marx’s theory is not evident in your upbeat answer. 


[1282] Bimmer: graded A There are two specific conditions that must be satisfied for 

labor-power to be a commodity. The two conditions are that the laborer must be able to sell 

their labor-power which is their ability to work. The second condition is that the laborer is 

limited in that he/she can not produce a final good to be sold in the open market. 

The first condition says that the laborer must be able to sell their labor-power. The amount 

of labor-power or work sold is based upon the amount that the laborer wants to sell. Furthermore, 

the work can not be coerced out of the laborer. The laborer must be able to sell his/her 

labor on their conditions. They must be able to enter into a contract and leave a contract 

willingly and when they decide. By this I mean at the end of his contract he can chose to


continue working or not. This freedom is part of the first condition. The final last point of 

the first condition is based on the the previous sentence. Since the laborer has the freedom 

to chose to enter and leave a contract, the labor sold is therefore only sold as a temporary 

amount of time. 

To continue on about the second condition is that the laborer’s labor-power is the reason 

why he/she can not sell a final good on the open market. The reason the laborer sells their 

labor-power, is for precisely this reason. The labor-power is what is added with the means of 

production to create a final good. Since they don’t own the means of production, they can not 

own the final product or the commodity. Therefore labor-power is the commodity because 

you need labor-power along with the means of production to create a final good. Without one 

or the other you have a missing link. The capitalist owns the means of production; therefore, 

the commodity is labor-power. 


Question 666 Explain how the transformation of money into capital at the same time does 

and does not take place in circulation. 

[918] Jason: graded A The Metamorphosis. With respect to the transformation of money 

into capital, Marx says “This metamorphosis, this conversion of money into capital, takes 

place both within the sphere of circulation and also outside it” (akmk, pg. 301:2/o). Here 

Marx is mostly recapitulating what was already discovered in Part II (Chapters 4-6). Marx


had already said “Capital cannot therefore arise from circulation, and it is equally impossible 

for it to arise apart from circulation. It must have its origin both in circulation and outside 

circulation” (akmk, pg. 268:2). 

Though the general formula of capital “immediately appears as M-C-M’ ‘’ (akmk, pg. 

257:1), the only way the circuit of capital can achieve self-valorization without violating 

the laws of commodity exchange is through the form of industrial capital - M-C...C’-M’. 

Capital is not only value in motion, but value attempting to expand by itself - in the process 

of achieving these aims, the transformation of money into capital occurs (and must occur) 

both within and outside of circulation. 

While money is the first form of appearance of capital, money by itself cannot be capital. 

In order to be capital, value must be exposed to a process, it must be set in motion. As 

Marx says at the beginning of Chapter 6 “The change of value, by which money transforms 

itself into capital, cannot take place as long as it remains in the form of money...if it retains 

the form of money, it petrifies into a mass of value unchanging magnitude” (akmk, pg. 

270:1). So the capitalist, being the embodiment of capital, and acting on its behalf “throws” 

money into circulation (M-C) in the hope the money will one day return to him in a greater 

quantity. But, as we learned in Chapter 5, mere circulation does not create value, and the 

process of exchange is an exchange of equivalents. Merchant’s capital, or direct M-C-M’ 

seems contradictory.


In Chapter 6, however, we learn the solution to the mystery of surplus-value rests in the 

purchase and consumption of a very special commodity - labor-power. While the purchase of 

the labor-power occurs on the market, and in the sphere of circulation, in order to utilize the 

commodity labor-power, the capitalist must consume this commodity - they must exit to the 

private sphere of production, outside the realm of circulation. Industrial capital is the form 

of capital in which self-valorization is possible, without breaking the laws of commodity 

exchange. Equivalent values are always exchanged, yet the capitalist walks away with more 

value than the equivalent for the value advanced. This can occur because the productive 

consumption of labor-power, an act outside the sphere of circulation, leads to the creation of 

a product with more value than the inputs into the production process. 

To continue the quote from the beginning of this essay (akmk, pg. 301:2/o), Marx says 

“...within the circulation, because conditioned by the purchase of the labor-power in the market...” 

Here, Marx means two things: (1) that labor-power becomes a commodity converted 

into capital, which the capitalist has advanced money in the market (the sphere of circulation) 

in order to acquire; and (2) the availability of wage-labor on the market is a historical 

necessity for the transformation of money into capital (akmk, pg. 272:3/o). Marx continues 

“...outside the circulation because what is done within it is only a stepping-stone to the production 

of surplus value, a process which is entirely confined to the sphere of production.” 

In other words, while the purchase of the commodity labor-power (and the means of production) 

starts the necessary motion needed to transform money into capital, these commodities


cannot just be resold with the expectation of profit. Instead, the capitalist must withdraw to 

the sphere of production to productively consume his (purchased) labor-power - a process 

that can yield surplus-value. The final step, not mentioned here, is a return to the sphere of 

circulation with the output of the labor-process - capital in the form of a commodity, which 

contains surplus-value. After the commodity has been sold in the market, and capital has 

returned to the money form (now M’), the process can be repeated. 

It is this process, where money enters into circulation by advancing itself for the use-value 

labor-power (and other means of production, but especially labor-power), followed by the 

consumption of this labor-power in the production process, outside of circulation, and the 

realization of the value of the product of this productive consumption in the market, which is 

the transformation of money into capital. Three things are important to note in this process: 

(1) This process occurs both inside and outside circulation; (2) M-C-M’ does occur (though 

maybe more accurate would be M-(C+L)-C’-M’) - value is set in motion, surplus-value is 

created, so value has self-valorized, and money has become capital; and (3) the laws of 

commodity exchange, i.e., equal values are exchanged for equal values, are not violated. 


[1370] Agloeck: Magic money. The transformation of money into capital appears as a 

magical process upon first glance. Marx of course delves into the process of circulation and 

production to see how this “magic trick” of capital is actually accomplished. He finds that it 

happens in and out of circulation.


First the capitalist has to purchase the means of production such as raw materials and 

machinery—which are all products of past or abstract labor. The capitalist must buy these 

commodities at market values which are subject to the rules of exchange—which is socially 

necessary labor. For example, if the capitalist was producing clothing it would not be socially 

necessary to purchase solid gold scissors for his workers to use when regular steel scissors 

would produce the same results. 

The next step of capital creation takes place outside of circulation in the labor process. 

The material and labor are purchased in the marketplace at their value but then put to work 

to create more value during the production process out of sight of the marketplace. The 

labor-power the capitalist purchased revives the “dead” means of production through the 

labor process and gives the commodity a new form of value. The value is not just equal to 

the inputs but has surplus-value. 

Marx outlines this process at the end of chapter 5 when he says that the money owner 

“must buy his commodities at their value, sell them at their value, and yet at the end of the 

process withdraw more value from circulation that he threw into it at the beginning” (pg. 

269). What appears magical in this transformation of money into capital is the congealed 

labor contained in the commodity produced. 

Hans: No, the magic lies in the fact that the consumption of labor-power produces more value than is necessary 

for the labor-power to reproduce itself. 

Next Message by Agloeck is [1471].


[1411] GTIguy: The transformation from money to capital depends on one’s perspective. 

When money is in circulation it is constantly changing hands. As it moves from one hand to 

the next it changes from money to capital and back again upon the next transaction. 

Hans: Wrong definition of capital. 


[1427] Vini: The transformation into capital from money both does and does not take 

place in circulation because it all factors into how the individual will use the capital. Money 

can turn into the capital in the exchange process and from this point can either be sat on or 

stabilized for growth or investment or further purpose down the line or can be transformed 

back into monetary acquisition with further or more immediate exchange. One example 

would be the purchase of stock at one point in time (money → capital) which can then either 

be held on to, ending immediate circulation, or sold when stock value is higher, advancing 

circulation (capital → money). 

Hans: You are only talking about monetary values. Money is sterile; it cannot grow its value. The process when 

this growth actually occurs is outside circulation. 


Question 683 Would Marx agree that the minimum length of the working day is the time the 

worker needs to earn enough money to make a living? 

[939] Villa: graded A– Necessary labor equals making a living. If necessary labor 

denotes the amount of hours a laborer must work in order to make a living then yes when


setting surplus labor or b—c equal to 0 the result is a minimum length of the working day. 

This tends to be in only in theory. Marx knows that the capitalist system knows little if any 

minimums because the system is based on surplus value. The capitalist yearns to become 

wealthy, developing power on the backs of the laborer. Interesting to note that Marx utilizes 

the phrase “necessary labor” and not something like “worker’s labor”; his use of the phrase 

shows his view of capitalism, how the worker should be treated in his view. The formulation 

of this fact is the basis for which we can see that in theory surplus value or exploitation is 

not necessary, but that in practice it is an inevitability and otherwise capitalism would not 

function. 

Hans: Wrong definition of necessary labor, see multiple choice question 724. What is called “necessary labor” 

does not depend on Marx’s views how workers should be treated, but on simple economics. 

Using the same definition of necessary labor as Marx, you are right that capitalism can only exist if the working 

day is longer than the necessary labor. The bright side here is that economics does not dictate how much longer the 

working-day must be. If workers fight for higher wages, they make the necessary labor longer and the surplus-labor 

shorter. Capitalists may not like that, therefore they try to pretend the economy comes to a screetching halt if wages 

are raised, but this is not true. 

Message [939] referenced by [940] and [949]. Next Message by Villa is [961]. 

[940] Jag: How much is needed to survive? I don’t believe that Marx would agree that 

the minimum length of the working day is the time the worker needs to earn enough money 

to make a living. Marx says nothing about the minimum amount of hours in his text. Villa’s 

statement about capitalists in [939] is perfect when he states that the capitalist system knows 

little if any minimums. In the capitalist system, workers could work all day and capitalists


would be happy because they are creating more money. The “necessary labor-time” could 

be confusing and some may think that it means the worker only needs the “necessary labortime” 

to survive, Marx means it’s the part of the working-day in which the worker produces 

an equivalent of his wages. I don’t think this means that the worker’s wage is necessarily the 

amount he needs to survive. 

Hans: You have the right definition of necessary labor, but you say two other things about Marx which puzzle me: 

(1) you say “Marx says nothing about the minimum amount of hours in his text.” Marx discusses the minimum 

length of the working-day in 341:2. 

(2) Even if you don’t think so, Marx’s theory of wages is exactly that wages are determined by what the worker 

needs to survive at a modest standard of living. Marx thinks that wages are not determined by output. 

Message [940] referenced by [958]. Next Message by Jag is [1007]. 

[949] Stig: Just enough to get by. Marx says: “. . . we have a minimum bound [to the 

working day], i.e., the part of the day which the laborer must necessarily work for his own 

maintenance.” [341:2] This is the amount of ‘time the worker needs [to work] to earn enough 

to make a living’, or provide for their own sustenance. So yes, Marx would agree with that 

statement. 

The workday is defined as A—-B—-C, which represents its division into two parts, A 

through B and B through C. A—-B is representative of the portion of the day the laborer 

needs to work to provide the most basic needs of survival, if his labor is less than this then 

he cannot survive and cannot continue working; A—-B is therefore the minimum length of 

the working day.


B—-C is the remaining time worked by the laborer and the value he creates from that 

labor is essentially the profits for the capitalist who owns his means of production. 

This is simply a longer explanation of what Villa says in [939] “. . . when setting surplus 

labor or b—c equal to 0 the result is a minimum length of the working day.“ Meaning that 

if the distance B—-C equals zero then the only part of the workday remaining is that part 

which provides minimum sustenance for the worker. 

I agree with Marx’s division of the workday, however I recognize it as a simplified form. 

An example I think of to complicate it is: most laborers in modern capitalist societies themselves 

receive a surplus from their labor. Very few laborers actually receive exactly enough 

to make ends meet. Although I am very aware that it often feels that way (like for me, now), 

there is usually a net gain by the worker i.e. net savings, or making payments on a house 

that include principal not only interest. This extra division does not help explain where capitalists’ 

profits come from and therefore was not necessary to include here, but I still wonder 

what Marx would think about it and how it would fit into his theory. Any ideas? 

Hans: You misunderstand what Marx says in 341:2, and Marx is not terribly clear. The time “the laborer must 

necessarily work for his own maintenance” is the time necessary for the worker to produce the things he or she is 

consuming, roughly in the USA today this is half a day, see [920] about that. It is not the time necessary to earn 

enough money to buy these things. Hourly wages are set up in such a way that the workers need all day to earn an 

equivalent of what they produce in the first half of the day. 

In your last paragraph you write that the worker gets ahead when they pay off their mortgage. But they are often 

forced to take out a reverse mortgage when they retire. Counting over their whole lifetime they don’t get ahead. If


they happen to have something left over, often the medical bills of their last weeks use it up. Capitalism has ways 

to ensure that workers do not benefit from their labor. 


[958] AR: Responding to [940], Marx would not agree that the minimum length of the 

working day is the time the worker needs to earn enough money to make a living. Jag [940] 

talks of necessary labor is important because it is the fixed time that needs to happen in order 

to get the job done. This is true but also, Marx mentions about surplus labor and how this 

carries day to day. Surplus labor is going to change and cannot be consistently calculated. 

Necessary labor and surplus labor are what make up the labor day not just the necessary 

labor-time. 

Hans: While question 683 formulates one of the usual wrong definitions of necessary labor, your answer formulates 

a different wrong definition. Multiple choice question 724 is an attempt to collect all these wrong definitions. 

Question 683 is wrong answer (b), and you are formulating a wrong answer similar to (e) which I added for future 

Semesters as (f). By the way, related multiple choice questions, where you can exercise this distinction more, are 

725 and 789. 


[1139.1] Pepe: graded C Marx would disagree with your assessment, because the minimum 

length of the working day is not the time needed for the worker to make a living, rather 

the time needed for the worker’s labor-value to produce enough for him to live on. The distinction 

is that the minimum length of the working day must take into account the worker’s 

labor-value, time wage, and ability to produce. Minimum work day would be incomplete 

without considering the value of said labor time.


Hans: The main difference is a different one: if a worker earns $15 per hour, then this does not mean his labor 

creates a value of $15 per hour. This value is usually around twice as much. 


[1143] Abysmal: graded A Marx would not agree that the minimum length of the working 

day is the time the worker needs to earn a living. Marx would say that the minimum length 

is actually the time it takes for the worker to reproduce the value of his or her labor power. 

Time in excess of this is that which produces surplus value for the capitalists. The minimum 

bound exists because, if it were not surpassed, there would not be surplus working time for 

the capitalists to profit from. 


[1147] ImmanentMaterialist: If “the minimum length of the working day” is to be understood 

as necessary labor time, then no, this particular formulation is incorrect. Necessary 

labor time is determined by the amount of time that the worker spends producing a sum of 

value that makes up for his or her daily wage, not by the requirements of their daily subsistence. 

For example, lets say a worker is paid $10 an hour and works 8 hours a day. Further, 

lets say that for every hour worked the laborer produces $25 in value for the capitalist. In 

this case, the necessary labor time would be 3 hours and 12 minutes as that would be the 

amount of time needed to reproduce the $80. 

Hans: Another difference is that between reproducing a value and earning a value. 

Next Message by ImmanentMaterialist is [1148].


[1176] RikkiAllie: A minimum working day could consist of only those hours needed 

for necessary labor, but the company would not be making a profit. Also, workers would 

be working less time and their wages would be lower. Marx also states that laborers should 

be earning and be compensated for their labor at a decent rate to not only live, but live 

comfortably. Marx also talks about the minimum bound. This minimum bound exists in 

theory but not in practice (annotations, 487). He believes that due to many factors including 

wages, the bounds are fluid. You cannot limit every company to a certain amount of hours 

that would be a beneficial minimum length. 

Hans: Your second sentence is wrong. The shorter the day, the higher the hourly wages, because the entire daily 

wage still has to feed the worker for a day. 


[1214] KATES: Marx would not agree that the minimum length of the working day is 

the time the worker needs to earn enough money to make a living. Instead of determining 

the minimum bounds or length of the working day by the amount of time a worker needs 

to reproduce his wage Marx would instead say “in order to reproduce the value of his labor 

power.” If the workday is at this minimum not enough would be produced for the capitalists 

to skim off their profit. This leads Marx to say the minimum itself is unattainable. 


[1215] Stig: Marx states that ‘the minimum bound of the working day is indeterminable’ 

[341:2]; he would agree, however, that necessary labor is the time the worker needs to earn 

enough money to make a living. Marx divides the working day (defined as a – b – c) into two


parts: necessary labor and surplus labor. Necessary labor is given as a – b, and surplus labor 

as b – c. He defines a – b as the amount of time necessary to reproduce the equivalent of the 

laborer’s daily wage; this is the break even point for the capitalist any less and he is losing 

money to have the laborer work for him, anymore and he is making a profit. Therefore a – b 

is the absolute minimum workday possible. 

Marx, however, also notes that if the capitalist is not earning a profit then he will not 

engage in that activity when he states “On the basis of capitalist production, however, this 

necessary labor must always only form a part of the working-day; the working-day itself can 

never be reduced to this minimum.” [341:2] Therefore: in practice the working day must be 

to some degree greater than a – b and becomes a – b – c so that there is some (usually a lot) 

of surplus value (a – b – c). 

So, although Marx would recognize this as the theoretical minimum workday, he knows 

it doesn’t quite work out that way in practice but that the true minimum is larger than a – b. 

Hans: a – b would be the break-even point for the capitalist if he had to pay the same wage to the worker regardless 

of length of workday. 


[1221] Reeree: Marx mentions that “a day’s labour is vague, it may be long or short.” The 

minimum length of the working day is the length in which the worker needs to work in order 

to survive. As where the maximum length is how much a worker can keep on producing 

without physically hurting themselves.


Hans: So would or wouldn’t Marx agree with the formulation in the question? 


[1238] Hans: Work Day Limits for Society. For an individual worker, it is true that he 

or she must work long enough every day to earn enough to make a living. But this criterion 

does not carry over to society at large. 

For society at large, the working day cannot be shorter than the time the worker needs to 

produce the value of the things he or she is consuming. As Marx sees it, 

(a) workers in capitalist society are only allowed to consume enough to maintain their 

labor-power (although the question of what counts as “enough” is not just bare survival but 

also depends on the outcomes of past labor struggles) 

(b) capitalist profits come from surplus-labor or unpaid labor, i.e., labor which the workers 

performs for the capitalist without reimbursement. 

If the worker works only enough every day to maintain their labor-power, then the capitalists 

would not be able to pay the workers a wage below the value product of their labor 

and therefore would not be able to make profits (unless they want to depress the traditional 

standard of living of the workers, which is a change in the prevailing social structure that 

will probably lead to conflicts). 

The answer to this question is therefore: Marx would disagree with the question as formulated. 

The working day cannot be shorter than the time the worker needs to produce an


equivalent of the things they need to maintain their labor-power. It must be longer, because 

this difference is the source of capitalist profits. Only if the working-day is longer can the 

capitalist pay the worker a hourly wage which is less than the value the workers produce in 

that hour. The time the workers nees to earn a living is therefore strictly longer than the minimum 

length of the working day, because the worker must produce not only an equivalent of 

his own wages but also the profits for the capitalist. 


[1307] Extraterrestrial: graded C The minimum length of the working day, according to 

Marx, is the amount of time necessary for a worker to work in order for a capitalist to make 

a profit. So no, Marx would not agree with this statement unless of course workers were 

actually paid what their labor power is worth. 

Hans: You are apparently talking about the break-even level. See questions 667 or 789. 


[1397] Tim: graded B– If we assume “a living” constitutes that which is required to earn 

enough wages to purchase the bare necessities of life; then yes, Marx would agree, since 

being deprived of this income level would render the worker uninterested in returning to 

work, or dead. 


[1468] Tony: graded A Marx wouldn’t agree that the minimum length of the working day 

is the time the worker needs to earn enough money to make a living because the minimum 

length of the working day is not enough money for the worker needs to earn to make a


living. The formulation shows that in working-day, the hourly wages are the subsistence 

needs divided by working hours. The calculation shows that in capitalism, the workday set 

up first half of working day as a subsistence needs, and another half as a surplus value, but 

the thing is that in capitalism, they do not let the workers making enough money if they only 

work half of the day because the capitalist won’t be able to make a profit. 


Exam Question 687 is 395 in 2000fa, 420 in 2001fa, 453 in 2002fa, 469 in 2003fa, 521 

in 2004fa, 495 in 2005fa, 537 in 2007SP, 536 in 2007fa, 544 in 2008SP, 575 in 2009fa, 

and 658 in 2011fa: 

Exam Question 687 What are the minimal and maximal bounds for the length of the 

working-day, and how are they determined? 

[1083] Agloeck: minimum and maximum bounds. Marx says that the working day is 

not constant, but variable. Hans explains in annotations (p. 486) that variable means that 

there is no economic law which would force the total working-day to be a certain lengththere 

are just bounds for minimum and maximum length. The minimum length would be 

what workers need to receive in daily wages to pay for living expenses such as clothes, 

rent, utilities, food, etc. But the minimum is indeterminable. The maximum bound can 

be determined because it cannot be forced beyond a certain point. There are two ways to 

determine the maximum bound. First, by the physiological bounds of labor power. There is


only so much labor a person can perform in a single day. The second is the cultural bound 

which is the time a worker needs to satisfy his intellectual and social needs. 

Hans: Your definition of the minimum bound is wrong. See [2011fa:752]. 


[1115] KATES: Minimal and Maximal bounds and the working day. The minimal and 

maximal bounds for the length of a working-day are determined by a few different factors. 

Minimum bounds are determined by the amount of time it takes to reproduce wages and 

labor power and the maximum bounds are determined by a persons need. Minimum bounds 

the time it takes to reproduce wages, but also the labor power according to Marx. You need 

to reproduce your wages in the length of a working day but if your wages are not enough 

for profit then just reproducing your wages makes the minimum unattainable and it comes 

down to the value of your labor power. The maximum bounds are determined by the value 

received from a laborer’s power, but a laborer only has so much power because they also 

have a need for physical and mental well being. The maximum bounds are determined by 

how long a laborer can work, the need for a healthy mental state, the need for food and sleep 

and the need for social interaction. Workers need to stay healthy mentally and physically in 

order for them to keep maintaining labor value for the firm. When a worker is tired and not 

performing as well as a healthy person their value to the firm goes down. When a worker is 

healthy and able to perform to their full ability they are more valuable to their firm. 

Hans: The maximum length is not the same as the optimum length for the capitalist. 



Question 717 is 499 in 2003fa, 552 in 2004fa, 570 in 2007SP, 565 in 2007fa, and 605 in 

2009fa: 

Question 717 Is it true today that the laborer is for 24 hours a day nothing else than laborpower? 

[943] TMM: Working 24 Hours a Day. Yes, it is true. The laborer is for 24 hours a 

day nothing else other than labor-power. The working class believes that this is the case 

and there is no other way, the capitalists have made this the only thing they can believe 

by embedding it into their routines and minds. The laborer today is labor-power for 24 

hours because everything the worker does might be related to work even though they are 

not necessarily still “working.” He or she has to recover from work, prepare for work, etc. 

(as stated by Hans’s translation on Page 502). This can be best explained by an example of 

a worker that works a normal work day 9:00am to 5:00pm, where the worker is constantly 

surrounded by the effects and the thought of work. A weekend or weeknight can be thought 

of a preparation for the next working day where the worker is constantly thinking about how 

they must get enough rest in order to be productive at work, or take it easy on the weekend 

because the upcoming week of work is going to be rough. A worker is continuously affected 

by work; it’s always in the front or back of their mind right up to the moment they go to bed. 

The average laborer will have to miss certain events because of work in the present moment 

or because they must prepare for work the next day, where the average laborer accepts work 

the next day as a given and the routine eventually becomes a subconscious action. In 375/o,


Marx says that “time for education, for intellectual development, for the fulfilling of social 

functions and for social intercourse, for the free-play of his bodily and mental activity, even 

the rest time of Sunday” must be sacrificed to the exigencies of work. The capitalist would 

most likely exploit the employee to the maximum with long days and treat them as a droid 

that continues to work a steady pace. The laborer simply needs to replenish themselves in 

order to prepare for the next working day, if they do not, their productivity will most likely 

be down, this is the only reason they get a time away from their immediate “work.” There is a 

continuous strain between the capitalists and the worker; this will always be ongoing because 

the capitalist will always continue to maximize the amount of labor from the laborer. 

Message [943] referenced by [950]. Next Message by TMM is [969]. 

[948] SVN: Just Another Laborer. There are so many ways to look at the situation of 

the present day laborer and how they fit into modern capitalist society. It is true that labor 

laws and conditions have vastly improved compared to the “Robber Baron” days of the late 

1800’s and early decades of the 1900’s, which, being generous, were a half step above full 

blown slavery. It is true that over the last 150 years the worker has fought back against the 

capitalist and made life better for themselves, these steps essentially leading to the creation 

of the middle-class. Because of unions, the length of the working day has been shortened, 

allowing the laborer some time to fulfill other physiological and social aspects of life. 

But this is extra free time that the laborer has garnered for himself is just the modern day 

equivalent of the “minimum-bound” as Marx calls it, that the overly worked laborers of the


early 1900’s were given. As technology has evolved and become more efficient, less labor 

time of the worker in the factory is required, so it leaves one to wonder if the unions’ success 

for decreased labor hours was actually a true social victory, or if it was just something 

the capitalists could afford to cede, because technology had evolved so much. Marx talks 

about how there is no sentiment in capitalism, not necessarily because the capitalist does not 

have a soul, but because there is so much competition that everything must evolve around 

maximizing labor-power and squeezing a profit out of every last ounce of it. Any changes 

in working time for the laborer are likely not be because of human sentiment, but because in 

the end a shortened day will still maximize profits. 

Therefore I would argue that the modern day laborer is still nothing more than 24 hours 

a day nothing else than labor power. Sure there is some time to go play softball or hang 

out with some friends and family, but that is all just the modern day minimum bound. It is 

what the present day worker needs to be able to be fully productive at work the next day. 

Whatever the firm does to cater to the worker, is so that they will be fully productive the 

next day, everything revolves around productivity. Even in the “white collar” jobs like at 

corporations such as GOOGLE, where there is day care, a gourmet cafeteria, and a gym 

all at the office as well as fancy company retreats. They offer these amenities because they 

don’t want the worker to leave the office. Offering “perks” such as that are just ways to keep 

the laborer working at full capacity. GOOGLE is a perfect example of the corporation has 

taken over the family lifestyle.


Capitalism still thrives on laborers, being laborers 24 hours a day, but now it just has a 

different mask on than it did 100 years ago. 

Message [948] referenced by [950]. Next Message by SVN is [1012]. 

[950] ZachS: Re: Just Another Laborer. If I understand SVN [948] correctly you are 

saying that every hour of the day is being used up as labor power because that is what 

satisfies the ‘minimum-bound’? If labor-power is a commodity, and what you say is true, 

wouldn’t every hour of the day have to be spent with the focus of producing more commodities? 

Obviously the laborer eats and sleeps and has time spent not working to fulfill his/her 

minimum-bound, but there comes a point where someone can have too much free time especially 

if the work day continues to decrease in length. I think the laborer has the potential to 

use all of his/her time wisely under the banner of labor-power, but I don’t think it’s realistic 

with our society today. Some people like to unplug and get away from work and not think 

about it at all. 

Hans: You seem to be saying that the worker can get a lot of free time if they use their time wisely, and that “too 

much free time” is not good for them anyway. If I understand you right (and I am not sure if I do), your little essay 

confirms that “the working class believes there is no other way” as TMM said in [943]. 


[973] Hans: Called in without pay. Below I am including a true story from Brian 

McKenna, Professor of Anthropology at the University of Michigan, Dearborn. It shows that 

the capitalists still today think they own their workers 24 hours a day. Brian’s story brought 

memories back to me about my first three months at Chrysler’s Lynch Road Assembly Plant


in Detroit in 1972. I took this job because I wanted to organize workers for the Communist 

Labor Party. Several times I was told to show up for work during Summer Changeover time, 

only to sent back home again. The UAW had a “call-in pay” in their contract, which says: 

if they call you in for work, they have to pay you at least for 4 hours. I never got my callin 

pay. I don’t know why, perhaps there was some fine print saying employees still under 

“probation” don’t get call-in pay, perhaps the foreman never told management that he called 

me in and then sent me home again. I didn’t ask questions because I didn’t want to make 

waves because I was still under probation and they could fire me any time. Plus I had not 

told them about my Ph D in Math from Germany, I told them that I had worked in a bakery 

in Germany, and lying on your application was cause for dismissal in the first 3 years. This 

was my own story, from here on it is Brian speaking. I think his story is more outrageous 

than mine: 

I tell [my students] that I have had several fast food jobs, and I tell them about my first 

one, at 19, when I flipped burgers at Gino’s (a competitor of McDonald’s) in 1975 in the 

suburbs of Philadelphia. I was earning money for college. Ginos advertised “flexible hours” 

to cater to college student’s busy needs. I signed on at $1.90 an hour, plus one free hamburger 

per shift. 

“One day I was called in at the last minute for an evening shift of four hours. Not owning 

a car, I took public transportation to the place, about 4 miles away, for the 4:00 shift. It


started to rain. When I arrived, soaking wet at 4:00, I was told, ‘we don’t need you anymore 

tonight, Brian.” 

“But it took an hour to get here and I want to work. Please let me do something.” 

“Can’t you see?” the manager pointed out the window, “it’s raining out, hard, and no one 

is coming into Ginos. We don’t need you. Can you work a shift on Saturday at 11:00 to 

2:00?” 

“Can I at least have my hamburger?” 

“But you didn’t work!” he said. 

I got home around 6 PM. Total time spent from home to home again: 3 hours. Total 

wages earned: $0.00. 

“This was an education for me,” I tell students. “I thought, why aren’t we paid for the 

time we travel to work, and for the time getting ready for work? Why do we have no real 

power at work? And how did they decide on the $1.90 price per hour in the first place?” This 

led to a series of many more critical questions, over time, about commodity production and 

the reproduction of the laborer, about profits and people, about how we can and must resist. 


Question 719 is 484 in 2002fa, 555 in 2004fa, and 579 in 2008fa:


Question 719 What is wrong with the argument that the economic self-interest of the capitalists 

themselves will see to it that they treat their workers well? 

[945] Jason: graded A+ Count Capital the Bloodsucker. Capitalists increase their 

wealth and social power through the use of capital, especially capital in the form of laborpower. 

One might therefore expect the capitalist class, acting in its own self-interest, to 

“guard and cherish this treasure,” i.e. look out for the health and well-being of the working 

class, so they could have sustainable access to this resource. But Marx explains production 

where the exchange-value or the production of surplus-value predominates, combined with 

the social content of capital, is unable to regulate itself in this way. Further, Marx shows historical 

developments that promote the tendencies of boundless expansion by capital. Marx 

therefore concludes that capital will overreach its moral and even physiological bounds despite 

the self-interest of capitalists, and a class-struggle where the working class asserts its 

own rights is necessary in order to mediate and sustain the long-run interests of capital (and 

capitalists). 

From Marx’s first examination of the circuit of capital in chapter 4, we learn the movement 

of capital, and the quest for surplus-value is insatiable. In chapter 10, Marx draws 

an analogy between capital and a vampire. Capital is an insatiable monster, whose goal is 

to suck the lifeblood out of living labor for the purpose of its own expansion - it is value 

run amok. Marx says “Capital cares nothing for the length of life of labor-power. All that


concerns it is simply and solely the maximum of labor-power, that can be rendered fluent 

in one working-day.” The capitalist acts as the living embodiment of capital, his or her own 

will intertwined with the social content of capital. Therefore, as capital cares nothing for 

the length of life of labor-power, the capitalist cares nothing for the well-being of his or her 

workers. Marx demonstrates the attitude of the capitalists with respect to the mistreatment, 

degradation, even torture of the workers with the quote “Ought these to trouble us since they 

increase our profits?” 

But the social relations surrounding capital represent only tendential (and historically 

conditioned) laws - there must be an enforcer of these laws. In capitalism, the sheriff, 

deputy, judge, jury, and executioner are all one...market competition. Marx shows how 

certain historical developments within competition have led to the mistreatment of workers 

in the consumption of labor-power, enabling and necessitating capital’s drive for selfvalorization. 

Historically, in capitalist societies, there has existed a “rural-overpopulation.” 

To show how this supply of replaceable labor can affect the well-being of workers, Marx 

gives a historical account of slavery in Georgia and Mississippi. Given a situation with a vast 

supply of slaves, he says “when his place can at once be supplied from foreign preserves, the 

duration of his life becomes a matter of less moment than its productiveness while it lasts.” 

The capitalists experienced the same ability to overwork their own employees in the pursuit 

of surplus-value, because workers could easily be replaced from the rural population. The


capitalist wouldn’t even have to worry about additional outlays for slave-capital. Competition 

enforced the social relations of capital, and helped transform the ability to overwork 

and mistreat workers into a necessity. Any kind capitalist interested in the well-being of 

their employees would be overrun by the more brutal capitalists, who managed to extract the 

most value and social power from their workers. This leads to a kind of social Darwinism, 

as Bobby [2008fa:786] recognizes. Capital will, over time and with help from competition, 

find the vectors, the capitalists, who are as interested in surplus-value as capital is. 

Because capitalists are slaves to the social relations of capital, and these social relations 

call for maximum exploitation of labor-power, even at the expense of worker’s health, the 

capitalist class cannot move to treat their workers well. This requires class struggle, a declaration 

of the rights of the working class by the working class, and an insistence on a normal 

working day, which doesn’t overstep moral or physiological boundaries. It is this class struggle 

that can help mediate the expansion of capital, and keep it in check (though this class 

struggle cannot eliminate the internal contradictions of capitalism). Thus, in asserting their 

own rights, the working class helps the capitalist class to follow its own self-interest, or at 

least enables a certain level of sustainability. But this cannot stem from the social relations of 

capital, or the self-interest of the class which enacts its will - it must come from an external 

force. 

Here, Marx is very critical of Classical Political Economy’s concept of the invisible hand. 

The idea is that individuals acting in their own self-interest, whatever that may be (selfish,


selfless, etc., doesn’t matter), will benefit society. However, the social content of capital and 

the social relations surrounding the production of surplus-value are so strong they will not 

only enable certain actions by individuals, but necessitate these actions, such that the intent 

of these individuals becomes subsumed into social roles. As slaves to these social relations, 

capitalists, acting on the behalf of capital, do not benefit society. Quite the opposite, if left 

unchecked they are capable of destroying it. 

Message [945] referenced by [956]. Next Message by Jason is [1184]. 

[1291] Kannon: Many of the submissions this semester (and previous semesters) assume 

that capitalists care about the workers’ well being—that the altruism is an extension of profit 

seeking behavior. This is false. The working day and its length (and treatments of workers) 

is determined by the minimum bound (where labor power reproduces itself in value) and is 

an unattainable limit because profit would be zero. The maximum limit is the amount the 

worker can work while still meeting his or her physical and social needs. This is a constant 

contention between worker and capitalist—and capitalist often use outright exploitation (in 

addition to hidden exploitation of value produced) to quell workers’ rights. An example in 

the archive was capitalists who hire undocumented workers and then claim they are treated 

well because they keep showing up for work [2011fa:745]. But if they didn’t they would 

be fired and deported. There are also current events that confirm this, like the recent Papa 

Johns healthcare debacle where the CEO threatened to fire workers because his company 

could not afford healthcare for its workers, even though this would be only the equivalent 

of 10 cents extra per pizza sold. These examples are clear indications that Marx was right.


Capitalists have diametrically opposed reasons in commodity production than their workers. 

Instead the inherently exploitative relationship is driven between the maximum and 

minimum mentioned, in the capitalists’ drive for surplus value. This is why capitalism is 

an inherently dehumanizing system, and the capitalists don’t care about their workers’ well 

being for altruistic reasons. 


[1301] JohnLennon: There are a few reasons supporting an argument against the concept 

that “the economic self-interest of the capitalists will see to it that they treat their workers 

well”. The first argument against this could be that overpaying your workers can cause 

laziness and less incentive to do a job well. If the worker is making just enough to get by 

that worker will have a smaller chance of calling in sick and slacking of on the the job. If 

the worker believes that he/she needs this job to survive and that there isn’t a better job out 

there for them they will do whatever is necessary to maintain that that job. 

However if someone is overpaid and has plenty of extra money they may be more apt to 

take the day off if they are sick or tired, knowing that they have plenty of money to make 

ends meet. For a capitalist to get the most out of their workers they have to create a strong 

need for their workers to labor most effectively. 


[1348] DJB: Capitalist is king. The capitalist is dependent upon capital and the creation 

of it. With labor being one of the key sources of capital the capitalist must find a way to


always keep re-supplying his means of production. As such the capitalist will want the 

worker only taken care of in as much to give him their labor. If he does this that means he 

will always have a source of labor in which to create and make his goods, giving him the 

control over the rights of production. Marx is able to show this in chapter 14 when he is able 

to conclude that capitalism is focused on expanding and drawing out as much labor power 

that is available in a worker’s day. So the capitalist really doesn’t care about the worker but 

the amount of labor that they can put out and supply to him. The social consequences of 

capital being created is drawing from another source of power, so when a capitalist does this 

he does not care about the workers health, life, wants, or needs—he cares about his own 

profits. 

Hans: I think you mean chapter 10 instead of 14. 


[1389] Brie: In order for the capitalist to make a profit, they must insure that the cost 

of labor is lower than the profit made from from the commodities produced. If this means 

exploiting their laborers, the capitalist will do so. As the need for jobs is typically great, 

the capitalist gets away with treating their workers to their advantage, and forcing them to 

create as much product as possible. If such a worker becomes ineffective in the future, the 

capitalist can simply obtain a new one. Accordingly, the capitalist’s interests lie in whatever 

benefits them the most, rather than insuring that working conditions are favorable or that 

their employees are paid well. 

Next Message by Brie is [1390].


[1416] Ula: Self-Interest and Exploitation. The whole capitalist system–including the 

labor laws–is setup to benefit the capitalist. In this system, the laborer is not a person with 

feelings and interests, but a commodity to be exploited. After all, it is in the production 

process which includes the individual’s labor-power where the value is derived and, in turn, 

where the capitalist realizes his surplus-value. It’s in the exploitation of the labor-power 

(worker) that the capitalist makes his money and gains his wealth. His, the capitalist, selfinterest 

comes at a detriment to the laborer. The laborer is unaware of how much value she 

has created. It’s a secret kept from her and all other workers. It may be true that she knows 

or has some idea that she is being exploited, but she has no idea to what degree she is being 

exploited. She has no idea of her true worth to the capitalist. Therefore, she cannot truly 

know how “well” she should be treated. Unfortunately, she fits right into the system and 

plays her role in the system. Her role is simply to be the labor-power and to make a living 

wage. 

First Message by Ula is [700]. 

[1439] MKW: The argument that it is in the self interest of the capitalist to treat his 

workers well does not have a vast amount of evidence to fall back on. The overarching 

goal of the capitalist is to maximize profit. Therefore the capitalist will pay the worker the 

lowest possible wage and still remain competitive and keep them coming back. He becomes 

a master at reducing the cost of labor power by lowering wages, extending the workday 

and/or subcontracting work and doing so in a manner that disguises his real intentions of 

increasing his surplus value. Once all the use-value of a worker has been exhausted through


this exploitation, there’s always another desperate fellow eager to take his place so there’s 

hardly any incentive for the capitalist to improve conditions. 


[1442] Jess: graded A– Capitalists treating workers well? The argument that economic 

self-interests of capitalists will see to it that they (the capitalists) will treat workers well, is 

extremely flawed. This is because it fails to realize that a capitalist’s main goal, is simply 

to accumulate profits. In order to reach this end, a capitalist will exploit the hours a laborer 

works for as long as is legally and physically possible. If a capitalist cared for the wellbeing 

of its workers, they would either cut back the amount of surplus labor hours they 

allocate in a day, or they would increase labor wages. However, when have we ever seen 

this happen within a capitalist society? The answer to that question is: you don’t. This is 

why in capitalistic societies, you see generations of families forced to live in poverty or even 

fluctuations of welfare recipients. If capitalists cared for their workers, they would make 

sure they receive a fair wage that allows for them to afford the basic needs that our society 

deems as “socially necessary” for living. 

Hans: Are you seriously thinking there were never raises in wages and a shortening of labor hours in capitalism? 


Question 723 Why were some capitalists themselves in favor of shortening the work day?


[963] AbeFroman: Individual Capitalists in Favor of Shortening the Work Day. Althoug 

capitalists function in the market as the personification of capital (Hans’s annotations, p. 

490), with a “were-wolf’s hunger for surplus labour” (Hans’s annotations, p. 503), this isn’t 

due to some sort of inherent malevolence within the individuals. It’s competition between 

capitalists that drives this behavior. Individual capitalists essentially cannot afford to let 

their sense of what is good for their workers interfere with their pursuit of profits. If they 

decide that their moral values outweigh the drive for surplus-value, they will be crushed in 

the market by those with less scruples. 

Despite this dynamic, however, unethical practices can still be exorcised from the market, 

but this can’t happen without an outside influence that is able to force the uniform application 

of rules and regulations. An individual capitalist may personally support shortening the 

work day, believing that granting workers more personal time is ethically-speaking the right 

thing to do, and as an individual, he may welcome a new regulation enforcing this practice. 

However, he will also not willingly shorten the work day of his workers, without everybody 

else also being forced into the same position. 

Hans: I changed “drive for value” into “drive for surplus-value.” 

You stress the moral sentiments of the capitalists. There are also economic reasons. With a shorter workday, 

labor can be intensified. Capitalists who introduced more modern and efficient production methods did not want to 

be undercut by ruthless competitors working their workers excessive hours. 

Next Message by AbeFroman is [1352].


[977] Diego: Capitalists need intervention to collude! I found this to be an interesting 

question and one worth discussion though past the period already. When looking at why 

capitalists would actually be in favor of shortening the working day or (by extention) not 

allowing child labor we find only a faint hint of morality. 

Capitalists are in direct competition with each other - all the bakers for example are 

competing for morning customers. In the capitalists mind they are forced to have laborers 

working all night and long hours to beat the competition. The capitalists interest is to make 

the same profit without having laborers work overnight. This could be due to faint morality 

as it is not nice to have the poor hours for their laborers or, to be more pessimistic, due to 

the fact that it is not convenient for them to monitor or manage at all hours of the night. In 

any case, these capitalists would like to make the same profit without the long hours. 

The capitalists could accomplish this by collusion - by discussing with all other bakers 

that no one is to sell fresh bread prior to 3pm allowing all parties to hire laborers for day 

work only and not have to compete for a delivery time. For many reasons, collusion is 

extermely difficult and basically impossible in a commodity market with many bakers - as 

someone would surely cheat to win profits! Therefore, by going to the state seeking ‘hours 

regulations’ the capitalist can reach the same goal as collusion but with the state involved 

in monitoring. In this way the state regulation works to the benefit of the capitalist by 

effectively helping them collude.


This is why you see some capitalist interested in shortening of the working day. 

Message [977] referenced by [980] and [1152]. Next Message by Diego is [982]. 

[1130] Justin: Some capitalists might be in favor of shortening the work day for either 

moral or economic reasons. The moral reason, which is less likely to be the true reason, 

is that they legitimately care about their workers’ health and happiness more than they care 

about making a profit. It is possible that some capitalists would feel this way, but a much 

more likely reason is economics. If the work day is shortened, the capitalist is able to 

increase the intensity of labor performed to a degree that he otherwise could not, allowing 

him to extract more surplus value from the laborers. Treating his workers better could also 

give consumers a more favorable opinion of his company and encourage them to buy more 

from him, which would also help increase his economic standing. 

Hans: Concern for the workers also has an economic component: they don’t want to have to compete with other 

capitalists who get an unfair advantage by abusing their workers. 


[1152] Diego: graded A The lengthening of the working day - looking at bakeries for 

example - made it very difficult for capitalists to make a profit without lengthening the day 

for their workers. Bakeries were competing for bread purchases in the morning and so had to 

have hot bread early ensuring their employees had to work through the night. A baker who 

wanted to shorten this or change hours would be disadvantaged due to late bread availability 

in the morning. The bakers could form a sort of cartel and agree that no one produces bread 

for sale prior to 10 am but this would be impossible to enforce. Shortening, legally, the


working day would be the equivalent of an enforcing mechanism and so some capitalists 

saw this as an opportunity to balance competition. In this case the state regulation works to 

the benefit of the capitalist by helping them to collude (Diego, [2012fa:977]). 


[1218] EricR: Below is a few reasons why capitalists where in favor for shorting the work 

day. 

-Keep up the overall health of the laborer, too long of work days would end the laborer’s 

life sooner. (Marx gives this example of the German versus the French Army. The French 

were malnourished and could barely bear a gun.) 

-Have the Laborers actually have a chance buy the product the capitalist were producing, 

with some time while they are not at work. 

-Marx states that capitalists are “destroying the source of value and wealth.” And they are 

doing this if they are overworking the laborer’s and they do not have a surplus of labor. 

Hans: There is a difference between the why a too long work day is bad for society, and the reasons why capitalists 

are interested in shorter work days. 


[1225] Carol: Hans mentioned in his annotations that “Capital’s only standard is profitability” 

(p. 510). In an unregulated scenario, it is extremely difficult for the capitalist to 

consider the conditions of the worker unless he is forced to do so by the struggles of the


working class represented as “society”. It is then that some capitalist are in favor of shortening 

the working day due to long term interests. Although some moral sentiments may apply 

when the capitalists wish to shorten the workday, there are also overwhelming amounts of 

economic reasons in play. Labor can be intensified in a shorter workday. This means that 

usually more workload will be placed on each individual worker, and thus increasing the 

amount of surplus value generated for each paid working hour. Intensified labor also means 

shorter rest periods for the worker and an increase in the overall effort required by the worker 

in a given shift. Shortening the hours in this way would ensure that capitalists with more 

advanced methods of production are not challenged by other ruthless capitalists who are 

making their workers work excessive hours. Simultaneously, shortening the working day 

does not stop the capitalists from profiting from the laborer. For example, if a worker’s 

hourly wage is $10 and produced a value of $20 per hour, the capitalist makes an 100% 

profit of $10 an hour out of the worker. If the labor is intensified, the worker may even 

produce more surplus value with added pressure. In addition, even if the laborer’s working 

hours are reduced from 8 hours a day to 4 hours, the worker still generates the surplus value 

per hour. This means that the profit the capitalist receives remains the same. 

Hans: In Marx’s theory of wages, hourly wages are the daily reproduction cost of the labor-power divided by the 

normal number of hours worked. I.e., shorter hours will not decrease the wages the workers get per day. 


[1501] Bear: graded C The short answer is that the capitalist is interested in maximizing 

productivity as well as efficiency. A rested worker will do a better job than an overworked


one. A happy worker will have less turn-over which saves on training new employees and 

increases job satisfaction. Many capitalist opted for a long work day to squeeze every bit 

of productivity from a worker with no thought of tomorrow or the well-being of the worker. 

The shorter work day is still a selfish endeavor but a more long-term approach to profit 

maximizing. 

Hans: This sounds like a reasonable explanation, but it is not Marx’s explanation. Marx argues that the capitalists 

are too greedy for their own good. They are not able to switch to an enlightened long-term view in which the profit 

motive takes second place to social peace. 

Only after some industries were forced by the resistance of the working class to shorten the day, and after it had 

become clear that the extremly long workdays would not come back, did some other capitalists ask for a general 

legislation forcing a uniform length of the work day on all capitalists in order to eliminate unfair competitive 

advantages. 


Exam Question 732 is 203 in 1995WI, 210 in 1995ut, 232 in 1996sp, 232 in 1996ut, 285 in 

1997WI, 350 in 1997sp, 349 in 1997ut, 359 in 1998WI, 360 in 1999SP, 472 in 2001fa, 511 

in 2002fa, 529 in 2003fa, 582 in 2004fa, 535 in 2005fa, 584 in 2007SP, 591 in 2008fa, 

683 in 2010fa, 703 in 2011fa, and 683 in Answer: 

Exam Question 732 What is relative surplus-value? Which mechanisms, that were so far 

taken as given, affect the magnitude of relative surplus-value?


[1080] Shelly: graded A Relative Surplus Value. Relative Surplus Value is the surplus 

value derived from a decrease in necessary labor time (labor time necessary to reproduce the 

workers wages), which stems from an increase in technology/production. 

The productivity of labor is the factor which has been considered constant up until this 

point. 


[1084] Agloeck: relative surplus-value. Marx defines relative surplus-value as “surplusvalue 

which arises 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.” 

To “curtail” necessary labor the capitalists can reduce wages below labor-power value 

to increase the surplus-value; but this is not a long run solution because it “undermines 

the development of the working-class” (Annotations, pg. 518). Therefore the only way 

to reduce necessary working time is to increase productivity. Marx states the results of 

continually increasing productivity: “Capital therefore has an immanent drive and constant 

tendency, towards increasing the productivity of labor, in order to cheapen commodities and, 

by cheapening commodities, to cheapen the worker himself” (pg. 437) 

Hans: Yes, this is right. 


[1137] Snowball: graded C Relative Surplus Value. Relative surplus value is the surplus 

value attained when there is a technical advancement that leads to a shorter amount


of time required to produce a commodity. Relative surplus value is temporary, however, 

as other firms will catch on and implement the same changes, bringing all firms back into 

equilibrium. 

Hans: What you describe is extra surplus-value, not relative surplus-value. 


[1139] Basil: Relative Surplus Value. Relative Surplus Value is increases in surplus value 

that result from production increases as a result of technical innovation. Simply put, when 

productivity increases, a worker can produce the same amount of necessary value in less 

time, but because the time in the workday does not decrease, the worker simply produces 

more relative surplus value. Any given hour of work now produces the same necessary 

value, and more relative surplus value, which translates to more profit for the capitalist. The 

mechanism previously held constant is productivity. 

Hans: What is “necessary value”? Marx does not use this concept. 

Originally you hade “productive capacity” in your last sentence, which is not the same as “productivity,” although 

I assume you meant “productivity.” 

Next Message by Basil is [1140.1]. 

[1181] Neela: graded C Relative surplus-value is the distribution of extra surplus-value 

amongst the laborers. The two mechanisms that, were so far taken as given, affect the 

magnitude of relative surplus-value are the social conditions of wages and the labor process. 

Hans: This is not the definition of relative surplus-value. It might be helpful for you to go through the answers of 

multiple choice question 733. 

Next Message by Neela is [1189].


[1199] Leont: Relative surplus-value appears when the shortening of the necessary labortime, 

and from the corresponding change in the respective lengths of two components of the 

working day. Productivity of labor is the mechanism that is a given affecting relative surplusvalue. 

When the productivity of labor increases so does the relative surplus-value. On the 

other hand when there is a decrease in the productivity of labor, the relative surplus-value 

decreases as well. [2008fa:797] 

Hans: You are required to copy your answers of the designated exam questions without change. 

When copying your source you introduced inconsistent grammar. Is this your idea of using your own words? 


[1205] Gladwell: graded B Relative surplus value is when extra surplus value, which is 

temporary, spreads to all producers. Gains due to increases in technology/production lead 

to extra surplus value. When competing firms adopt the new technology or productionincreases, 

extra surplus value becomes relative surplus value. Technology and productionincreases 

affect the magnitude of relative surplus value. 


[1209] Rowlsroyce: Relative surplus-value is basically even though labor-time was into a 

commodity that was produced to the point of surplus, it still has value even though it loses 

value or its value is changed because of the surplus. One of the mechanisms that affect the 

magnitude is the labor-value. It has to fall for relative surplus-value to exist. 

Next Message by Rowlsroyce is [1456].


[1231] AndyUte: graded A Relative surplus-value involves the capitalist shortening the 

necessary labor time of his workers which would, in effect, increase his profits. Technological 

innovations and advancements are one way through which capitalists are able to decrease 

the necessary labor time. 


[1278] Bimmer: graded A Relative surplus value is the decrease in the necessary labor 

time. Ultimately by decreasing the necessary labor time, you can decrease wages and effectively 

make the workers more productive. That is really what relative surplus value is 

about, it is about increasing productivity through technical innovation. Better machinery 

and means of production will allow more productive workers which in turn cuts down the 

necessary labor time. 


[1293] JEP: Relative surplus value is the extra value created by reducing the labor time 

in production. This can be done through advancements in the labor process while keeping 

wages constant. 

Hans: Since value is measured by labor time, a reduction of labor time in production does not create extra value 

but creates less value. 


[1343] TMM: The relative surplus value requires the value of labor-power to fall. If 

we can assume the capitalists cannot increase surplus value by making the workers work 

longer hours, in order to increase or decrease the surplus-labor this would depend on the


difference between the value produced and the value of the labor power. However, capitalism 

cannot still function with shorter or longer surplus hours, but the surplus value cannot be 

necessarily determined by economic laws. Mechanisms taken as a given that affect the 

magnitude of relative surplus value are that the capitalists cannot increase their surplus value 

if they can’t make the worker work longer hours. Essentially, the capitalist’s subjective 

purpose in pursuing M-C-M’ is valorization of value and the objective content in M-C-M. 

For example, assume the wage is $10 per hour and the worker works an 8 hour day, the 

worker also produces $32 of value per day. If we take a look, this means the worker’s daily 

wage is $10 × 8 hrs = $80 per day, where at a produced value of $32 per day this means that 

the worker really only needs to work 2 hours and 30 minutes in order to produce the daily 

value of $32 per day. The rest of the day (the other 6 1/2 hours) the worker is simply being 

exploited by the capitalist to gain a larger surplus off the worker. 

Hans: I cannot follow your math. If the worker produces a value of $32 per day and gets a value of $80 per day, 

then he gets more value than he produces, there is no exploitation. 

First Message by TMM is [172]. 

[1357] Glister: Relative surplus value is the change in labor, for example, if labor became 

more efficient then one would produce a commodity faster creating relative surplus value. 

The laborer will increase his labor power but will not receive labor value in his paycheck. 

Money is something that affects the magnitude and surplus labor time 

Hans: More efficient labor increases the use-value produced per hour but not the value produced per hour. 

Next Message by Glister is [1574].


[1361] Nunu: Relative surplus-value, technology and constant production. Relative 

surplus-value has to do with greater value of a commodity or greater profits due to decreasing 

value of labor-power that is brought on by technological advancement. Better technology 

allows for greater, easier production of commodities. Constant production was taken as a 

given but with better technology more and more can be produced. 

Hans: Technical progress leads to higher profits but not to more value produced per hour. 


[1406] AR: content C form 90% According to Marx relative surplus-value is “surplusvalue 

which arises from the shortening of the necessary labor-time.” Necessary labor-time 

is what is used to produce worker’s wages. The productivity of labor is the mechanism 

that affects most of relative surplus-value. Relative surplus-value increases as technology/production 

and labor increases. 

Hans: You are not allowed to rewrite the answers of the designated exam questions. Your grade is for your in-class 

answer. 


[1466] AbeFroman: Relative Surplus-Value. Relative surplus value is value capitalists 

gain by increasing the productivity of workers. This can be done in many ways (e.g. benefits 

from group work, introduction of technology). It is relative because workers aren’t, in fact, 

producing more value (the same abstract labor is placed in the commodities), but they are 

lowering the value of labor-power by making it easier for workers to subsist on lower total 

value.



Question 739 is 205 in 1995WI, 238 in 1996sp, 237 in 1996ut, 290 in 1997WI, 355 in 

1997sp, 354 in 1997ut, 363 in 1998WI, 364 in 1999SP, 477 in 2001fa, 516 in 2002fa, 536 

in 2003fa, 590 in 2004fa, 543 in 2005fa, 596 in 2007SP, 586 in 2007fa, 598 in 2008fa, 

627 in 2009fa, 690 in 2010fa, 710 in 2011fa, and 690 in Answer: 

Question 739 Do the workers after introduction of new machinery produce more value per 

hour? 

[978] Brie: Machinery in Value. “New machinery does not increase value, it only 

produces more of the product being produced.” Marx continually states that labor is the epicenter 

of value. Thus, the increase in production may produce more commodities, however 

does not increase the value of the commodities themselves. As value is a social relationship, 

I believe it is important to recognize that the laborers play an important role. When a 

machine is introduced, the commodity is no longer produced by a living, breathing human 

being. With this decrease in interaction, a decrease in value as a social representation is seen. 

Although an increase in product will be seen, the value of the product will not increase by 

hour; the laborer’s efforts do not increase with the machines, they are still the same for each 

hour and each working day. 

Message [978] referenced by [992]. Next Message by Brie is [1062].


[992] Neela: graded A– Machinery to Value. After reading Annotations and the response 

from Brie [978] I would thoroughly agree with her and Marx that the labor is the epicenter 

of value and that “new machinery does not increase the value, it only produces more of the 

product being produced”. I would stress the fact that yes, there may be higher productivity 

and an increase in the production output with the introduction of machinery. However, the 

amount of labor exerted is the same as prior to the introduction of machinery- thus, this new 

process of producing does not increase the value produced. 

It helps to apply it to a modern day product, for example, let’s assume I work a 1 hour 

shift packaging iPods at the Apple factory every day. One day, they bring in a machine that 

tapes the boxes shut for me. This decreases the amount of time I spent taping each box, 

therefore shipping more boxes per shift than before. I’ve increased my output for my shift, 

however I am still working 1 hour and the value produced does not increase with my output. 

Marx also mentions “individual value of the commodity”. As stated in Annotations, “The 

value calculation which Marx just made will eventually be relevant for all capitalists, when 

all producers have introduced the new production method; but right now it is only correct 

for the innovator’s individual value.” 


[1195] Elias: graded C+ Is Time/Effort Saved Valuable? When new machinery is introduced, 

the value of work produced by the laborer increases. Generally new machinery 

means that there has been a technological advancement or old, broken machinery has been


replaced. In the first case, that would mean a more productive or efficient unit, therefore the 

laborer would be able to produce more product in an hour than before. In the second case it 

would mean that a laborer would produce more than before as well, because they are using 

machinery that is now more functional than before. 

However, I get the feeling that my reasoning for this is not necessarily in the laborer’s 

favor, but the capitalist. Because of the increased productivity of the machinery and the less 

input necessary from the laborer, the value of that product in terms of the labor-input would 

actually be decreased from before. This would mean that the laborer has less value placed 

in to the product, than the work of the machine which could be exploited by the capitalist in 

greater profits for them, and stagnant or decreasing wages for the laborer. 

Hans: In Marx’s theory, machines produce no value. What the capitalist exploits is not the value produced by the 

machines, but the value produced by the laborers. New machines will not change that value. 


[1234] Alee: Workers after introduction of new machinery do not produce more value 

per hour. As Marx said “New machinery does not increase value, it only produces more of 

the product being produced.” He continually states that labor is the epicenter of value. The 

machines may increase the production and more products may be produced but it does not 

increase their value. 


[1284] Littlerock: graded A Whether Machines Facilitate Producing More Value. Only 

if the new technology has not been generalized, or in other words, if other firms have not


either already adopted that new technology or developed other, equally productive means of 

production, can the workers create more value per hour than normal. The reason that the 

workers can produce more value per hour immediately after the introduction of new machinery 

is because the average time necessary to produce that commodity has not changed. 

The other firms have not adopted the new machinery yet, so the workers at the firm that has 

implemented the new machinery are producing more rapidly than the average worker. As 

soon as the new machinery is generalized among firms, however, the socially average time 

required to produce that commodity decreases, and thus, all workers create the same value 

again. 


[1329] Gunther: graded C When a worker is introduced to new machinery on the job 

they do not produce more value per hour. They are able to become more efficient with their 

task at hand and can essentially produce more of the product being produced per hour, but 

this does not increase the product’s value. The amount of labor exerted by the worker stays 

the same. For example; If I have been packaging golf clubs at the Callaway golf factory by 

hand and suddenly acquire a tape gun my efficiency level rises with the surplus of output. 

Therefore, being introduced to new machinery does not increase the value per hour, while 

the output production surplus does rise. 

Hans: If they produce more products per hour and the value of the product stays the same, then they produce more 

value per hour. Marx would agree with this only in the short run. In the long run, the value of each piece of the 

product falls.



[1345] Speq: Marx would say that yes, the workers do produce more value per hour when 

new machinery is used. This implies that the additional value is generated by the worker 

and the additional profits generated are part of the exploitation of the worker. I disagree with 

Marx on this point. I would argue that, even though more value is being added to the product, 

the individual worker is not the one adding it. The new machine is adding the value. The 

value that the machine adds is due to the value added to the machine during the labor process 

that created the machine or the natural value that resides from coming from the Earth. I.e. 

to create the machine, labor power was used (or found naturally). The value created by that 

labor power (or from nature) is realized when used by the worker. This value is added to the 

value of the worker’s labor power to create the final value of the completed product. This 

would instead imply that the value created by the new machines does in fact belong to the 

capitalist, being the one that paid for the value on the open market, and not an exploitation 

of the worker’s labor power. 

Hans: Marx thinks that only in the short term, while the machine is new and not generally used, workers using this 

machine will create more value per hour. After this initial period, they create the same value as other comparable 

labor. 

According to Marx, commodity production does not have a direct way to value material resources. 

Marx agrees with you that machines transfer the value which they received from the labor of those producing 

them. But Marx emphasizes that other than this transfer, machines do not add new value to the product. 

Next Message by Speq is [1346].


[1384] ZachS: graded B Yes, the workers using the new machinery, as long as the new 

machine has exceptional productivity making the task much less labor intensive, do produce 

more value per hour than those with similar skills and productivity, but are still using old 

machinery. 

Hans: This is only half the story. In the long run, the value produced per hour remains exactly the same. 


Exam Question 741 is 218 in 1995ut, 242 in 1996sp, 293 in 1997WI, 365 in 1998WI, 366 

in 1999SP, 453 in 2000fa, 479 in 2001fa, 518 in 2002fa, 538 in 2003fa, 592 in 2004fa, 

545 in 2005fa, 598 in 2007SP, 588 in 2007fa, 596 in 2008SP, 600 in 2008fa, and 712 in 

2011fa: 

Exam Question 741 What is extra surplus-value? How is it related to relative surplusvalue? 

[999] Reginald: Extra Surplus Value. Extra surplus value is taken by individual capitalists 

from their enterprises by reducing the individual value of the commodity. The higher 

productivity of the labor of workers in the technologically more advanced enterprises, in 

comparison to the average level of productivity for a particular sector. Extra surplus value is 

temporary, because when new techniques and technology spread to other business in a similar 

sector, the social value of the commodities declines, and the disparities between their 

individual and social value disappears. Although extra surplus value is temporary, it doesn’t


disappear entirely but shifts from some capitalists to others. The extra surplus value consist 

of multiple surplus values. This is how they work together. 

Next Message by Reginald is [1266]. 

Question 747 is 547 in 2005fa, 606 in 2008fa, 635 in 2009fa, and 698 in 2010fa: 

Question 747 Relative surplus-value requires the value of labor-power to fall. Does this 

mean that in today’s world with sticky wages and union contracts, relative surplus-value is 

impossible? 

[997] Curtis: (graded A) Sticky wages and surplus value. On pg. 533 of the Annotations, 

Hans presents scenarios in which the surplus-value remains constant even when the 

required value of labor power remains constant. Each of these scenarios involves both prices 

and wages falling. In today’s world, union contracts typically prevent falling wages; however, 

both wages and prices fell in the scenarios Hans presented. Capitalists accommodate 

for their inability to decrease wages by not dropping prices. Thus, the error in thinking 

that union contracts and sticky wages prevent relative surplus-value from being accrued is 

thinking in nominal, rather than real, terms. In real terms, the value represented by the 

worker’s wages is falling as a result of technological progress, but the worker neither has his 

work-day reduced nor his wages increased. Technological progress creates surplus-value 

for the capitalist, which is cleverly disguised in unchanged wages and prices. As Jo said in 

[2010fa:705], “Since the worker’s wage is not increasing to compensate for the change in


labor content, they are essentially receiving a lower wage.” Marx also points to the role of 

technological progress in the creation of surplus value in 435:1/o; to paraphrase, the capitalist 

pays the same wage as before, even though the required time to reproduce value has 

dropped, and the capitalist’s surplus-value grows. 

Hans: Re-reading this later in the Semester I realize that I need to explain something which is only implicit in this 

answer. Monetary policy keeping the purchasing power of money constant is not analogous to keeping the value 

of gold constant, but to the technical progress in the production of gold being the same as the technical progress in 

the production of everything else. If this is the case, technical progress does not decrease prices, but it increases the 

dollar amount of value created per hour. 

Message [997] referenced by [1359]. Next Message by Curtis is [998]. 

[1359] Nunu: Relative surplus value and consistent wages. Relative surplus-value is 

still possible even in today’s world with sticky wages and union contracts because of technological 

innovation. The advancement of technology allows for the value of the product to 

be greater than the value of labor-power because more is being produced in the same amount 

of time as before the new and improved technology came into place. So, even when wages 

remain constant, production can keep increasing with technological advancement therefore 

driving greater returns and relative surplus-value. Even as wages remain the same because 

of sticky wages or union contracts, the capitalist still has the option to not drop prices or 

even increase prices (Curtis [997]). 

Next Message by Nunu is [1360].


[1392] AR: graded C+ Relative surplus-value requires the value of labor-power to fall. 

Does this mean that in today’s world relative surplus-value is impossible? Even in 

today’s world relative surplus-value is possible. ZuluBaba [2009fa:732] brings up a good 

example of how some employees in some companies took pay cuts in order to save other 

co-workers from being laid off during the recent recession. On the contrary, sticky wages 

and union contracts bring down relative surplus-value and make wages closer to necessary 

labor-time. This will never make it impossible in the capitalist system. Hans shows on 

page 533 in the text, “how the individual capitalist are motivated to produce relative surplus 

value.” The reason is competition. Competition is why prices are lowered. Competition is 

what turns extra surplus-value into relative surplus-value. 

Hans: “Sticky wages” means that workers resist a lowering of their nominal wages, and unions help them in this 

resistance. This does not matter because technological progress not only lowers the value of the worker’s means or 

consumption but it also lowers the value of gold, therefore it does not lead to lower prices. 


Exam Question 760 is 77 in 1996ut, 83 in 1997WI, 363 in 1997sp, 361 in 1997ut, 525 

in 2002fa, 545 in 2003fa, 599 in 2004fa, 552 in 2005fa, 625 in 2007SP, 605 in 2007fa, 

613 in 2008SP, 617 in 2008fa, 648 in 2009fa, 711 in 2010fa, 730 in 2011fa, and 711 in 

Answer: 

Exam Question 760 Your employer gives you your paycheck. How can you tell whether 

your pay is based on your labor or not? According to Marx, the simple practical detail that


the pay of most people is based on their labor has strategic importance for the functioning 

of the capitalist system. What is this importance? 

[1086] Shelly: graded A Labor is the work performed. Labor-power is the human 

expenditure. If my paycheck states how many hours I worked, then my pay is based on 

my labor, aka the work performed. However, my paycheck does not show how much value 

I truly produced; it hides the exploitation of my labor-power. For instance, suppose I am 

paid $300 for the week. My paycheck will in fact reflect this figure, but it will not show 

that the capitalist actually sold the commodity for $600, which is the total value I produced. 

The $300 reflects my labor and the amount required for subsistence. The $600 reflects the 

value I produced with my labor-power. So, why do I sell my labor-power for less than its 

true value? Because I do not own the means of production, the capitalist does. 

Hans: Your subject line is not quite right. Labor-power is the human ability to work. Selling one’s labor-power 

means to rent oneself out and allow the capitalist to use one’s ability to work for his purposes. 

In Marx’s view, the fact that the paycheck hides exploitation has strategic importance. 


[1117] KATES: Paychecks and Labor. Marx states that your hourly wages are determined 

by dividing your average weekly reproduction cost by the normal number of hours 

you work every week. If a paycheck shows how many hours you worked or how much of 

something you produced during your work time then you can see from your paycheck that


your pay is based on the labor you performed at your job. This calculated form of payment 

hides the exploitation of labor or else capitalism would not survive. 



Question 761 Both the fetish-like character of the commodity and the mystification of the 

wage form are important pillars of capitalism. How are these two pillars related to each 

other? 

[1006] AndyUte: graded B The Mystification of Capitalism. On page 675 in Capital, 

Marx states regarding the mystification of of the wage form that “In order to be sold as a 

commodity in the market, labour must at all events exist before it is sold. But if the worker 

were able to endow it with an independent existence, he would be selling a commodity, and 

not labour.” Similarly, Marx introduces us to the fog of the ‘fetish-like character of the commodity’ 

on page 164 stating “A commodity appears at first sight an extremely obvious, trivial 

thing. But its analysis brings out that it is a very strange thing, abounding in metaphysical 

subtleties and theological niceties.” 

Marx, no doubt, considers both the fetish-like character of the commodity and the mystification 

of the wage form, as important pillars to capitalism, to be controversial and extremely 

troublesome to understand. Because most of the partakers of capitalism are senseless to how


the system works, pillars such as the wage form and the fetish-like character of the commodity 

will continue to cloak Capitalism and limit its ‘bottom feeders’. Just as it is difficult for 

a blind man to remove himself out of a maze it is difficult for a worker to escape the bonds 

of Capitalism, especially when he does not know he is bound. 

Hans: Do you consider workers to be the “bottom-feeders” of capitalism? 

Your answer was originally submitted under question number 783, but it does not say anything about this 

question. So I assume that you meant it as an answer to question 761. 


[1014] Curtis: graded A+ Mystification of Wages and the Commodity’s Fetish-Like 

Character. Both the fetish-like character of the commodity and the mystification of wages 

are illusions that, on the surface, appear to be reality. 

The fetish-like character of the commodity gives the commodity “magical” properties 

that it does not truly have. Producers make commodities in order to exchange them for other 

use-values, and because the commodity is the avenue through which the rest of society is 

accessed, the commodity develops a fetish-like character, even though a commodity is still 

made of the same matter everything else is. 

Wages are mystified by appering to be derived from labor when they are really derived 

from labor-power. The capitalist has not bought the worker’s labor, meaning the work performed, 

but labor-power, the ability to do work. A helpful analogy I can think of to further


describe the difference between labor and labor-power is to think of labor-power as raw marble, 

and labor as the sculpture formed from the marble; the capitalist purchases the marble, 

not the sculpture, but also creates a sculpture from the marble. 

Both the fetish-like character of commodities and the mystification of wages are based on 

contradictions between the internal character and the external appearance. [2010fa:727] and 

[2010fa:326] draw on the importance of internal contradictions in producing surface appearances 

that hide a deeper functioning and reality. For the fetish-like character of commodities, 

the contradiction lies between the specific use-value of a commodity and its existence as unchanging 

matter, and the power of the commodity to connect the commodity owner with the 

rest of his society. The mystification of wages is also based on a contradiction, namely the 

contradiction between labor and labor-power, the former representing a specific act and the 

latter representing the general ability to work. 

Second, both of these pillars of capitalism are necessary to uphold the capitalist system. 

[2010fa:727] said, 

They form the structure, the housing; without these misconceptions and 

without the confusion, capitalism would not work. Marx believes that these 

misleading surface interactions rooted in the mode of production (capitalism) 

produce ideas and consciousness in the people living in the system. 

The people accept the mode of production, and all of its surface relations,


as given. This is what Marx believes actually imprisons and enslaves the 

workers in the capitalist system. 

Why is it that capitalism “would not work” without the fetish-like character of the commodity 

and the mystification of wages? Without the commodity’s fetish-like character, commodities 

would not be traded; the appearance of the commodity as the channel through 

which the rest of society’s productive power is accessed, commodities would not be produced. 

Producers would say, “Why should we produce commodities? I’d rather produce 

what I will consume.” The capitalist system would reach a grinding halt. Without the mystification 

of wages, workers would be less willing to sell their labor power. They would 

ask, “Why should I sell my labor-power when I could consume it myself and produce commodities 

and sell them myself?” One might even suggest that the mystification of wages 

is a special case of the fetish-like character of the commodity, where labor-power is the 

commodity. 

Hans: Your essay is very good but the last paragraph is wrong. Production for home use without division of labor 

is far less effective than modern mass production. People simply do not have the option to do this. And they cannot 

use their labor-power themselves because they don’t have access to modern factories and warehouses. 


[1016] SLOVENEC: The fetish-like character of the commodity and the mystification of 

the wage form are related to each other due to the clouding effect they cause on the minds 

of those participating in a capitalist society. For instance, the fetish-like charactor of the 

commodity creates a misconception among the workers due to the transformation of human


relations from the subjective, perceivable, aspects of a commodity to objective, socially 

determined, aspects of the commodity. By doing this, workers no longer see the full value 

behind each product and consequently, are ignorant to the full use-value they create. This 

allows the capitalists to only pay them a portion of what, in reality, they truly create. And in 

the case of the mystification of the wage form, the labour time required by each worker in 

a given day becomes necessary labor, labor that the worker is actually paid for, and surplus 

labor, labor that the worker is not paid for but transfers those earnings into profits for the 

capitalists. Both of these processes cloud and distort workers so that they are numb to the 

fact that they are being taken advantage of. In order to earn profits, a company must restrict 

wages so as to allow room for surplus labor, and the system of earning profits is capitalism. 

Without these two mechanisms, capitalism would not exist because workers would only 

work until they create the equivalent value for which they are paid. 


[1401] SLOVENEC: The fetish-like character of commodities and the mystification of the 

wage form provide the pillars on which capitalism can stand and are related to each other 

because they both cloud out the reality of what’s going on. The mystification of the wage 

form creates confusion, as the laborer is not able to see that the value he is producing is more 

than his wage. The fetish-like character of the commodities allows people to sell as much as 

they can and hoard money. These two mechanisms maintain the disorientation of the public 

and numbs them to the reality that they are being exploited. 

Hans: Wrong definition of fetish-like character.



[1405] Roosty: The mystification of wage for and the fetish-like character of the commodity 

are both pillars of capitalism because they hide the realities of exchange in capitalism 

from consumers and laborers. The mystification of wage form is a pillar of capitalism because 

it enables the capitalist to exploit his laborer by paying for labor as opposed to laborpower. 

The fetish-like character of the commodity is a pillar of capitalism because it give 

properties to the commodity that do not truly exist, and thus, gives the ability to produce 

and sell the commodity based on these manifested properties. These deceptions enable the 

capitalist to increase their surplus-value without the consumer’s knowledge. 

Hans: Wrong characterization of the fetish-like character of the commodity. Also your other two contributions 

about this subject, [298] and [767], show that you did not understand Marx’s theory of commodity fetishism but 

instead knitted together your own theory. 


Exam Question 769 is 226 in 1995ut, 250 in 1996sp, 248 in 1996ut, 301 in 1997WI, 367 

in 1997sp, 491 in 2001fa, 530 in 2002fa, 551 in 2003fa, 607 in 2004fa, 560 in 2005fa, 

634 in 2007SP, 614 in 2007fa, 626 in 2008fa, 720 in 2010fa, and 740 in 2011fa: 

Exam Question 769 Why can the laborer not use her labor-power to produce commodities 

and sell them, instead of selling her labor-power? 

[1087] Shelly: graded A Silly rabbit, the capitalist owns the means to production! The 

workers sell their labor power rather than using it to produce and sell their own commodities


because the capitalist owns the means to production. Since the capitalist is the one who 

owns the factories, the cloth, the machines, etc the worker has no other choice than to sell 

his labor-power to the capitalist. 


[1107] AndyUte: graded A McDonalds. Our laborer has no choice but to sell her laborpower 

because she does not have the necessary production methods as our capitalist does. 

For example, a hamburger flipper at McDonalds chooses to sell her labor-power to McDonalds 

rather than start her own restaurant where she could sell her own hamburgers because 

the necessary costs to own her own restaurant greatly exceeds her own assets. 

Hans: This is the right answer, and a good example. 

Message [1107] referenced by [1286]. Next Message by AndyUte is [1109]. 

[1191] Elias: graded A The Capitalist Owns Your Means. The laborer is unable to use 

her labor-power to produce commodities because the capitalist owns the means of production. 

The capitalist owns the raw materials, machinery, and the factory space to produce 

those goods, not the laborer. However, she does own the labor-power that is required to 

operate and make the factory actually work. Therefore, she has to sell her labor-power to 

the capitalist in order to receive a wage, and the capitalist buys this so that they may obtain 

profit. If the laborer owned the means of production, she would not have to sell her 

labor-power to anyone! 

Next Message by Elias is [1193].


[1236] Alee: The laborer can not use her labor-power to produce commodities and sell 

them because the labor power can only be sold. 


[1270] Smalls: She does not have access to the means of production. 


[1275] Shickadance: graded A If the laborer controlled the means of production, she 

would be willing and able to use her labor power to produce and sell commodities. The problem 

she runs into is having the necessary means of production. The cost of those means of 

production would put her in a hole, so she has to resort to an hourly wage from a productionmeans-owning 

capitalist. Someone who works at Taco Bell can make a tasty taco, and might 

be successful on their own. But this laborer doesn’t control means of production, and has to 

make tacos for a capitalist where resources are available. 


[1286] Littlerock: graded A Laborer Doesn’t Own the Means of Production. The 

laborer does not own the means of production. The capitalists monopolize the means of production. 

As AndyUte explained in [1107], a hamburger flipper at Mcdonalds cannot produce 

his own hamburgers because he does not have the necessary assets to buy a restaurant. 


[1332] Gunther: graded A This question only requires a simple response. The capitalists 

monopolize the means of production. The worker doesn’t have the necessary capital or


assets to rent a business building, provide machinery, tools, computers, etc. Therefore he or 

she is forced by the capitalist society into selling her labor power to the capitalist. 


[1346] Speq: The laborer cannot use her labor power to produce commodities because 

she has no means of production. I.e. she does not possess the tools and supplies needed to go 

into production herself. Making the problem worse is her need to sustain herself. She cannot 

live off nothing during the production process and cannot wait for the sale of the commodity 

to buy her subsistence. 


[1378] Ruffian: The laborer cannot use their labor power to produce commodities because 

they do not control the full means of production, only their own labor and time. The Capitalist 

provides the necessary means to create a commodity, such as the buyers and suppliers 

as well as the ability to sell to others, but never the workers. If the laborer supplied these 

they would immediately change roles. 

Next Message by Ruffian is [1379]. 

[1388] ZachS: graded C Labor-power is part of what gives a commodity its value, so 

labor-power must be sold by the worker to give the commodity value. If the worker wants, 

it can use its labor to produce commodities, but not labor-power because of how the value 

of the commodity is defined. 

Next Message by ZachS is [1476].


[1403] Amcelhiney: Workers have no control over the means of production. The laborer 

must make enough money to survive and the only opportunity they have to make money is 

to sell their labor power to the capitalist. 

Hans: You are not allowed to re-write the designated exam questions. The grade is for your in-class answer, with 

a penalty. 

First Message by Amcelhiney is [677]. 


Question 783 What are the contradictions of the concept “value of labor”? 

[1005] Frankie: graded B+ Absolutely Contradictory. The contradiction of the concept 

of “value of labor” is expressly stated in the terminology “value of labor” by implying that 

in fact labor has value. This is stated by Alex [2011fa:677] “According to Marx, the term 

‘value of labor’ is in itself one giant contradiction, as it implies that labor has value. Marx 

makes clear that labor cannot have value itself. As such, any use of the value of labor term 

is essentially a figurative expression.” In the Annotations it is stated how this contradiction 

was originally formed saying “Classical economists did not see the logical impossibility that 

labor, the source of value, cannot have value itself.” 

Hans: Look what I said in [2011fa:690] about Alex [2011fa:677]. 

Next Message by Frankie is [1024].


Exam Question 787 is 221 in 1995WI, 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, 

and 758 in 2011fa: 

Exam Question 787 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. 

[1099] Gladwell: graded A Capitalist Profit. To find the value of labor you must divide 

the daily value of labor-power by the daily number of hours worked [2005fa:1349]. The 

value of labor is the wage the worker must be paid to work, which is also equal to her cost 

of living. The capitalist will always ensure that the value of labor is less than the value of 

the product of the labor, for this is how the capitalist obtains profit. 


[1118] KATES: Value of labor and value of labor power. The value of labor is a derivative 

of the value of labor power. The value gained from the product of labor then becomes 

a reflection of the value of labor power. In a commodity, labor is reflected by production. 

Labor is not able to be priced because it is an action that has not happened and the labor is 

not produced. The value of labor comes from the actual production. As [1113] Neela stated, 

Chapter 6 is where Marx first discusses labor power as a commodity. 

Hans: This answer is too vague, and in an exam you should not open the can of worms why labor has no value 

if it is not necessary. In an exam it would be totally sufficient to say: “the word ‘value of labor’ in the question 

is in scare quotes because labor does not really have a value.” Gladwell [1099] gave a good answer which does 

everything an exam answer would require.



[1122] GMS: Value of labor-power. Marx explains the labor of value as labor-power 

as the tool to create value, and this is the only way to produce value. Therefore whenever 

someone produces something it creates value. The value of a commodity is derived from 

the labor of the workers and nothing else. The workers are not receiving the value they are 

producing, the workers only get the wage. 

Hans: You are not answering the question. 

Next Message by GMS is [1123]. 

[1246] PJM: Value of Labor. The value of labor is essentially the value of a day’s labor 

power divided by the number of labor hours actually worked. Since the value of labor is 

merely a derivative of the value of labor power, it is always less than the value created by 

labor. This difference in the value of labor or value of labor power and the value created by 

labor is the reason for the capitalist’s profit in performing M-C-M’. 


[1311] Frankie: graded D The value of labor is derived by taking overall value produced 

during the day and dividing it by the amount of hours worked. The value of labor is always 

lower than the value of the product of the labor (or capitalism would no longer exist). The 

value of labor is lower than the value of the product of the labor and this excess is the profit 

gained by the capitalist through the exploitation of the worker. 

Hans: What you have to start with is not the value produced during the day but the daily value of labor-power. 

This difference is a central point in Marx’s theory.



[1313] Agloeck: value of labor vs. labor-power. The “value of labor” is derived by 

taking the daily value of labor-power and dividing it by the number of hours worked in a 

day. The value of the product of labor is always greater than the value of labor because the 

capitalist controls the means of production and can exploit the worker; paying the worker 

for his labor-power not for the value he creates with his labor. 

Hans: In your first sentence you had “taking the daily value of labor,” I corrected it, but a full answer would also 

have to say how the value of labor-power is determined. 


[1381] Roosty: The “value of labor” is the portion of the value of labor-power that the 

laborer is compensated for. The “value of labor” will be less than the value of the product of 

labor, as this is how the capitalist exploits his worker to gain profits. 


[1399] SLOVENEC: The “value of labor” is derived from the value of labor-power as 

workers are paid for the value of their labor power, but in actuality create more value in the 

commodity they produce. Therefore, once the labor power is hired and employed, this leads 

to the value of labor i.e. the value that can be extracted from the workforce, and ultimately 

ends once a commodity is produced containing a higher value than what the workers were 

paid for. This leads to profits for capitalists, and exploitation of workers. This is possible 

because the capitalist owns the means of production and the workers don’t 

Next Message by SLOVENEC is [1401].


[1402] IrwinFletcher: graded C Value of labor is derived from the value of labor power 

because value of labor is what the laborer gets paid for, or the amount that he sells his labor 

to the capitalist for. The value of the labor power is the value of the product of what the 

laborer is making. The capitalist always wants the value of the power to be greater than the 

value of labor because that ensures that the capitalist earns a profit. 

Hans: Wrong definition of value of labor-power. 


[1415] GTIguy: In order to derive the value of labor from the value of labor power 

you must divide the value of labor power by the number of hours worked each day. The 

difference between what the commodity sold for and the wages paid for labor is the value 

generated by the laborer and the profit margin for the capitalist. 

Hans: Your grade is for your in-class answer, with a penalty because you are not allowed to re-write the answers 

of the designated exam questions. 


[1421] Novatore: Value of labor is derived from vale of labor-power by dividing the daily 

wage by the daily hours worked. Once obtained, this value, compared to the value of the 

product of labor, can indicate how much surplus value was extracted from the laborer’s labor 

process. 


[1424] Tiburon: The value of labor is derived from the value of labor-power, and it 

can be explained as the capacity of the laborer to perform a certain task. The capitalist


buys the labor-power, but in the capitalist reality, it compensates the worker for the value 

of labor performed. When this happens, is like buying wine and only compensating the 

seller according to the degree to which you get drunk with his/her wine. This is incorrect, 

nevertheless this happens daily in the capitalist society to hide exploitation, and thus the 

value of labor could be compared with the value of the product of the labor. 

Hans: The capitalist does not “compensate the worker for the value of labor performed.” The worker gets the value 

of his labor-power, no more. 


[1429] Vini: The value of the labor includes the alternate forms of labor that went into 

making the final product that is not always considered in the final purchase price. The 

value of the final product of labor is what others are willing to part with or pay to obtain 

the product, and often times what the potential buyer is willing to pay does not include the 

sweat, blood, tears and muscle power that went into the production process, just what the 

buyer is willing to concede. This is the difference between the value of labor and the value 

of the product of labor. 

Hans: Wrong definitions and wrong theory of profits, as far as Marx is concerned. 


Question 791 is 653 in 2007SP, 633 in 2007fa, 645 in 2008fa, 740 in 2010fa, and 762 in 

2011fa:


Question 791 Would capitalism be possible if exploitation was not hidden but clearly visible 

to everybody involved? 

[1013] Curtis: (graded A) How Exploitation Can Exist. After reading through many of 

the answers to this question in the archives, I noticed many attempted to answer this question 

based upon the conscience of consumers and capitalists. I don’t feel this is the most insightful 

way to approach this question. Consumers purchasing superficially cheap commodities 

and capitalists exploiting their workers are not surprising facts, and even with awareness, 

it’s possible nothing would change on a large scale in their behavior. Whatsmore, examining 

the conscience of consumers and capitalists in the process and at the end of the creation of 

commodities does not answer how those commodities could possibly be created to begin 

with; why is it that the workers who are being exploited continue to sell their labor power? 

Capitalist and consumer conscience, admittedly, could help stop exploitation, but does not 

explain how the exploitative relationship emerged to begin with, and in that investigation, the 

worker, who willingly accepts the exploitative relationship (albeit sometimes begrudgingly) 

must come first. 

After reading this, you would be correct in assuming that I do not believe that capitalism 

could exist if exploitation were clearly visible. I recall Hans’ comment in the Annotations 

that there is no whistle in the workday signalling the end of necessary value-reproducing 

labor and the beginning of surplus labor. Imagine, for a second, that such a whistle did exist.


What would happen after the whistle blows? What would the workers do? Would they work 

with equal diligence? It’s only by the compulsion of the capitalist and her threat to fire her 

workers that they even stay. And what if that whistle blew later in the day for some capitalists 

and earlier in the day for others? Who would the workers be more willing to work for? The 

mill where the whistle blows earlier would struggle finding labor. It’s simply hard to imagine 

capitalism functioning effectively and the workers placatedly accepting their wage-slavery 

if they were aware they were being exploited. It’s necessary for capitalism to maintain the 

illusion of fairness in order to keep the working class complacent and willing to accept their 

exploitation and continue to sell their labor-power, rather than rejecting the capitalist class 

and producing on their own, with only enough surplus value to maintain investment. 


[1023] Basil: There May be No End to Exploitation. When Marx uses the term “exploitation” 

he is referring to whenever laborers receive wages for less than the value of their 

labor production. The surplus value that the laborers create, in turn, becomes profit for 

the capitalist. From this, we can deduce that the term “exploitation” is essentially synonymous 

with the term “profit” because in a capitalist economy, the way the capitalist profits is 

charging more for a product than it costs to produce, thereby accumulating the surplus value 

from their laborers. This question asks, “Would capitalism be possible if exploitation was 

not hidden?” I would argue yes: I do not think that capitalism is possible without exploitation 

(that would mean no profits), but I do think capitalism can occur with visibly exposed 

exploitation.


Right now, exploitation is hidden because people do not think in terms of the labor theory 

of value. We do not think about the fact that when we produce something that someone else 

profits from, we are being exploited, and we do not think about how when we buy goods that 

someone else profits from, we are contributing to the exploitation of other workers. If the 

mindset of people changed to the point where we did think in these terms, however, I still do 

not believe it would change the phenomenon of exploitation itself, at least not significantly. 

This response had to parts, the first is to the question whether people would stop exploiting 

others if they realized they were doing it, the second is whether people would try to put 

a stop to it if they realized they were being exploited. To the first part of the question, I feel 

like the simple answer is no. Because of the capitalist attitude people inherit that the world 

is a zero-sum “me against you” game, it is easy to rationalize the exploitation of others. In 

the most extreme and egregious cases, like forcing children to work in dangerous conditions, 

and sweat shops paying people just pennies per day, people often seem to be well aware of 

these issues, but it does not stop them from buying products produced made in China and 

East Asia in this manner just described. 

To the second part of the question, of whether people would put an end to exploitation if 

they realized the capitalist was exploiting their productive power, I still think no. It seems 

that to this end, there may be more resistance by people who feel unfairly exploited, but 

overall the system would not change. It is true today that people do feel exploited, not in 

terms of their labor-power like Marx describes, but in terms of their purchasing power. I


think many people do realize that their purchasing power is intentionally limited in favor of 

the capitalist who own the means of production, and that their real income is not sufficient 

relative to market prices. Because of this, we occasionally see labor strikes, or movements 

like Occupy Wall Street, but they are not enough to incite change. However, maybe, as the 

question states, if exploitation became visible to all people, we would see movements and 

opposition on a large enough scale to change the status quo. 

The only way I could see visibly exposed exploitation putting an end to the capitalist 

system is first, as I stated above, that people realized on a very large scale that they are being 

exploited, but second, that people choose to stop exploiting others when they realize they are 

doing it. To me the first is more achievable, but the latter will be very difficult. And as long 

as there is one person doing the exploiting, there will be another who is exploited. Therefore, 

I do believe capitalism would be possible if exploitation was not hidden but clearly visible 

to everybody involved. 


[1026] Glister: hidden exploitation. In order to determine if capitalism would be possible 

if exploitation was not hidden, it is important to determine what Marx’s view of exploitation 

is. From the readings, exploitation is the benefit to one person without the other person 

gaining benefit. In addition, it is unfair that one person or party gains the benefit without 

any benefit going to the other person or party. If I understand it correctly, the capitalist is 

exploiting the laborer if and only if the capitalist benefits, without the capitalist benefiting


the laborer in return . So we can see that this is simply unjust. I feel Marx believed that 

capitalism went hand in hand with exploitation because he believed it was unjust and not 

fair to the worker that did not get paid for their works, which were a product of his labor. 

Regarding the questions of whether or not capitalism is possible if exploitation was not 

hidden but clearly visible to everybody involved, initially the issue seemed simple but after 

some thought it became very complex and I began to think of many answers. I would like to 

start out by saying that I think that most people feel that they are being exploited in the labor 

market but don’t know to what extent they are being exploited at. For example, if we take an 

assembly job worker in an auto manufacturing plant, how is that worker going to know how 

much labor they contributed to the whole car manufacturing processes and the total value of 

that car . I feel it all relates back to the industrial revolution when the worker was forced to 

perform repetition labor, unlike before when it was more of a craft and the labors work was 

more meaningful to him- or her-self. 

We also have to consider what Hans said in the annotations about there being no whistles 

when the surplus labor starts every day. So the question still remains, how can capitalism 

still be possible in this situation. I go to work because it’s the only way I can survive in this 

economy; in reality I don’t have much of a choice. I can either become an exploiter myself or 

join a union but that will still not fix the problem completely. I think that if exploitation was 

not hidden but clearly visible it would only change some people’s minds due to the worker 

only wanting the amount from the employer that would be sufficient for his or her needs.


But if we look at human nature, sufficient is never enough which leads me to believe that 

capitalization would not last if exploitation were not hidden and if at the same time we can 

keep one variable static. The variable would be the desire to become an exploiter himself. 

Hans: Marx uses the word “exploitation” for social relations between classes, not for individual interactions. See 

multiple choice question 612. Marx is critical of societies in which the transfer of wealth from certain classes to 

other classes is part of the social structure. Marx thinks if the means of production are controlled by the workers 

themselves, then people can still abuse each other and take advantage of each other individually, but you will not 

have idle rich people drawing property income while workers work all their lives and do not get ahead financially. 


[1027] Amcelhiney: Visible exploitation. Exploitation is a necessity for the capitalist. 

Working class people (the majority) grow up understanding that they must work harder and 

produce more to progress, but they do not earn the profit increases that the capitalist takes. 

The worker sees and experiences the exploitation, but believe that they have little power to 

alter their situation. It is possible that many people are simply sheep that follow the herd and 

obey the shepherd (Capitalist). Exploited workers cannot beg to change their situation while 

supporting the same people that encourage the corruption. 

Hans: You say that exploitation is visible. My response here is: society is sending mixed signals. Sometimes 

exploitation is obvious, but in other situations there can be doubt. Many think capitalism is a meritocracy. Marx 

says: what counts is not merit but control over the means of production. 



Question 805 is 668 in 2007SP, 646 in 2007fa, 655 in 2008SP, 659 in 2008fa, 690 in 

2009fa, 754 in 2010fa, and 776 in 2011fa: 

Question 805 Why a separate chapter about the time wage? Wasn’t the time wage already 

discussed in chapter Nineteen? 

[1052] Bimmer: graded B The surface of surfaces forms. In chapter 19, Marx focuses on 

the relationship between the wage at which a worker is paid and the price of labor-power. As 

Bandit in [2011fa:707] states,, “in this chapter he doesn’t fully explore the surface forms of 

labor. Marx criticizes main stream economics as being obsessed with things on the surface, 

while neglecting the different shapes these forms can take.” Hans states in his remarks to 

[2008SP:548], “Marx says that it is not enough to go into depth i.e, to decipher what is 

behind the surface forms of the wage of labor, but that it is also worthwhile to look at the 

surface forms themselves in order to see how these forms lead to intensification of labor, 

wage theft, whether they foster competition or unity between workers, etc. Chapter 20 and 

21 take a more thorough look at the surface.” Marx discusses how surface forms try to make 

themselves independent of the underlying mechanism while arguing at the same time how 

the forms mediate their underlying mechanism and how the resulting effects are explored. 

Utilizing the discussion regarding surface forms, Marx establishes the argument that time 

wage and piece wage both have the ability to impact the length of the work day; whereas, 

the piece wage has the ability to impact the intensity of labor. It is nearly impossible to 

formulate a valid argument regarding the discussion of time wage after determining the


wage form from just chapter 19. The argument is purely based on the analysis of surface 

forms and their effects. This is why another chapter is needed. Time wages, needs a separate 

chapter in order to analyze the actual wage along with the economic laws that show that they 

not only originate in the sphere of production, but also on the surface. So to reiterate what 

Hans states, we must look more thoroughly at the surface itself versus just taking an in depth 

approach to decipher what is behind the surface forms as it is not enough to curb an argument 

and this is why Marx writes as separate chapter on time wages. 

Hans: The rules for the homework answers are that you have to use your own words. You bring a collage of 

quotes, and then you paraphrase these quotes. I am not satisfied with this. I want you to tell me in your own words, 

using your own thinking, not copying someone else’s thinking, and using one coherent argument, not a multitude 

of different threads, why after chapter 19 Marx found it necessary to also write chapters 20 and 21. 

Message [1052] referenced by [1074]. Next Message by Bimmer is [1125]. 

[1074] AR: graded B– weight 25% Separate chapters are needed to discuss time wages 

because as Hans states, “Chapter 19 established connection between the price of Labor on 

the surface and the underlying relations of production.” Deeper shapes also define the surface 

of price of labor and show a combination of value of labor power and the length of the work 

day. The main shapes are time wage and piece wage. Both of these shapes extend and 

intensify labor. Time-wages need another chapter in order to analyze the economic laws of 

the actual wage and the sphere of production. By knowing that workers’ wage is calculated 

from the price of labor-power, in the later chapters the discussion of time-wage can take 

place.


Hans: Most of what you are writing is already covered in [1052]. Since your understanding of Marx’s theory is 

not very strong, you should concentrate on questions about the structure of Marx’s theory, and leave the details of 

how he composed the book Capital to others. As long as you don’t know what Marx is saying, you have no basis 

to judge his exposition. 

I am therefore not surprised that your second sentence starting with “Deeper shapes” is unintelligible. Regarding 

your third sentence, the point of chapters 20 and 21 is exactly that they do not look at the links to the sphere of 

production but that they stay on the surface. 



Question 806 What does one miss if one does not look at the form itself but only at that of 

which it is the form? 

[1077] Nunu: Importance of surface forms. Marx says that labor wages have many 

forms and Hans further adds in the annotations that labor wages are a form of labor-power 

and that this form itself can take many shapes. If one does not look at this form itself and 

the many shapes that this form can take, many side effects can be missed. There is much to 

be said about the sphere of production but also about the things on the surface, for example 

labor wages. Labor wage forms effect the length and intensity of labor, and competition 

between workers, among other things and without looking at the forms themselves these 

relationships would be missed (Hans [2009fa:833]). Furthermore these side effects help the 

sphere of production keep going but they happen as surface relations, and so, to get the


bigger picture it is equally important to understand the surface relations. Jojo [2009fa:805] 

adds that, “By ignoring the surface form effects, participants in a capitalist system are not 

able to take control of their social relations.” 


Exam Question 808 is 671 in 2007SP, 662 in 2008fa, 693 in 2009fa, 757 in 2010fa, and 

779 in 2011fa: 

Exam Question 808 Wages have two main forms: time wages and piece wages. Why does 

Marx discuss time wages first? 

[1063] Nunu: Time wages. Time is valuable; it is the one measure that can directly 

account for the worker’s labor-power, which is what he is selling. A person’s labor-power 

does not exist infinitely because the worker must take time to refuel and regain their energy. 

In addition, time is not a flexible resource, it cannot be reused or recycled, it only exists once. 

In other words labor-power has boundaries and the worker is subject to those boundaries 

of time and energy. If workers exert themselves infinitely beyond these boundaries, their 

labor-power would not be theirs, they would be more like slaves. In the words of Bone 

[2009fa:864], “If [labor-power] wasn’t [sold] over a finite period of time people would be 

selling themselves into slavery”, Hans also makes this point in the annotations on page 

571 along with Amy [2007SP:953], Rexmanning [2010fa:801], Bandit [2011fa:836]. Marx 

begins his discussion on wages with time-wages because it considers the most basic things


that the worker exchanges for wages, those being his labor-power and the time necessary to 

contribute to the production of the given commodity. 

Hans: Despite your many quotes (which have it right), you misunderstand the connection between time wage and 

slavery. You think too long work hours are so exhausting that they reduce the worker to an animal existence. This 

is not what Marx means with slavery. Marx says it is important that periodically, every day or week, the laborer 

has the right to re-sell his or her labor-power, i.e., it is important that the market is maintained as the mediator of a 

relationship which by its content is not much different from a slave relationship. 


[1089] KapitalSB: graded B Time wages first. Marx gives three main reasons as to why 

he discuss time wages first. In [2007SP:953] Amy pointed out the three reasons why. Those 

three reasons can be found on page 571 of the text. First reason, “time wage can only be 

sold for limited periods of time”. As explained in the annotations we discussed in Chapter 

6 “Sale and Purchase of Labor-Power” where it says, “it is essential characteristic of the 

commodity labor-power that it can only be sold for limited periods of time.” Second reason, 

time wage always takes place for specific periods of time (weekly, daily, hourly). This is 

according to 683:2 where it says “the sale of labor-power, as will be remembered, always 

takes place for specific periods of time.” Last reason, “whatever form of the wage, it must 

contain a measure of time”. We can learn from this that labor-power is going to happen 

over a period of time. Thus in [2009fa:864] Bone explains that wages have to involve some 

compensation for the workers’ expenditure of labor power. 

Hans: The capitalist buys the labor-power, not the expenditure of labor-power. The expenditure of labor-power is 

the consumption by the capitalist of the labor-power he bought.



[1119] Alee: Marx discusses time wages first rather than piece wages because piece wage 

is nothing but a transmuted form of the time wage just as the time wage is a transmuted 

form of the labor power. Piece wages are involved with measuring the labor expended by 

the worker by the number of pieces he has produced. In time wages the labor is measured by 

its immediate duration and in piece wages by the quantity of products in which the labor has 

become embodied during a given time. The price of labor time itself is finally determined by 

this equation: value of a day of labor = daily value of labor power. The output in the piece 

wage is not measured by labor but labor is measured by the output. In previous chapters 

we also saw that the length of the working day must be regulated. Whatever the form of 

the wage it must always directly or indirectly contain a measurement of the time for which 

the labor power is hired out. In time wages this measurement is made directly and in piece 

wages it is made indirectly. 


[1133] Pepe: graded A Marx describes piece wages as a ‘transmutation’ of time wages, 

thus time wages are discussed first. Piece wages are derived from time wages, and time 

wages are derived from labor-power. Thus if A is derived from X, you would discuss and 

understand X before A. 

Next Message by Pepe is [1139.1]. 

[1144] Abysmal: graded B Marx discusses time wages first as all wages are ultimately 

determined by the amount of labor-time, as the value of a commodity is determined by the


number of hours of abstract labor congealed in it. Piece wages are indirectly based on labor 

time as well; the idea that they are based on a worker’s productivity and effort is false, and 

the product of system of capitalist exploitation. They are therefore a transmuted form of 

time wages. Time wages are doubly important given that relative surplus value is a direct 

reflection of the amount of time spent by workers producing surplus value. All wages (even 

piece wages) are essentially time-wages, which are pre-determined by capitalists, but are 

made to look like a reflections of a worker’s effort to conceal the capitalists’ exploitation. 

Hans: Your first sentence is exactly wrong. Wages do not derive from the value produced by the labor, but from 

the reproduction cost of the worker. 


[1149] ImmanentMaterialist: For Marx, it was of the utmost importance that he introduce 

time-wages before piece wages as (appearances to the contrary) piece-wages are 

themselves a reformulated version of the former. That is to say, the worker is not selling the 

capitalist the product of his labor directly (as workers are so often lead to believe under this 

particular wage system). Instead, the worker is being paid by the amount of time that “experience” 

has dictated goes into the creation of the commodity. So essentially, the piece-wage 

is a kind of insidious metamorphoses of the time-wage form—hence the necessity of Marx’s 

discussion of the time-wage preceding the piece-wage. 

First Message by ImmanentMaterialist is [225]. 

[1165] Stig: test resubmission. Like he does by starting Das Kapital with the commodity, 

Marx explains the simpler concepts that we are more familiar with, first. He knows that we


must first understand time wages (the capitalist paying for labor-power by time), and how 

the capitalist exploits the worker by buying labor-power before we can understand the more 

intricate process of exploitation by paying piece wages; as that at first seems like the laborer 

is selling the product of his labor, not his labor-power to the capitalist. 


[1171] SVN: Test 2 Resubmission Question 808. Time wages are discussed first because 

the concept of time is a crucial element to the functioning of capitalism. The laborer sells 

his labor power to the capitalist for a set amount of time (day, month, hour, year). This is 

very important because it is a transaction where the laborer voluntarily sells his ability to 

work for a certain amount of time, and at the end of that time period they are free to leave, 

or return to work for that company again. It paints the illusion of freedom to the laborer. If 

time wage were not firmly established, the capitalist could purchase their labor power for 

an indefinite time period and it would be a system of complete slavery. Time wage is also 

the best direct measurement of total labor power. The capitalist can know exactly how much 

labor power he has purchased and use this to be able to accurately measure his production 

potential and forecast the profits he will make.. Without time wage being firmly established, 

the capitalist system could not function. 


[1178] RikkiAllie: Marx argues that piece wages are only a mutate form of time wages. 

Therefore without knowing what the significance and role of time wages, we wouldn’t understand 

piece wages.



[1188] Villa: graded A+ Time-wage is the basis of necessary labor and surplus labor, 

understanding its relation to the capitalist system first helps better identify with piece-wage. 

I would also say time-wages prevail in capitalist society. 

Hans: Yes, time wages are more prevalent than piece wages. This is a good supporting argument, and I think 

nobody said that so far in the archives. 


[1212] KATES: Wages have two main forms: time wages and piece wages. Marx discusses 

time wages first because this wage is directly related to labor time. Piece wage on 

the other hand is an indirect relationship. Time is an important influential factor because 

laborers only sell their labor power in limited amounts of time. If laborers did not sell labor 

power the relationship between the capitalist and laborer would collapse. The measurement 

of time is also the easiest way to measure labor power put forth by the worker. 


[1220] Reeree: Marx discusses time wage first because it has to do with the wage that is 

paid for the labor time. Piece wage is more of an indirect wage. A capitalist will pay the 

worker a certain amount of wage for their labor-power and will keep the remaining surplus. 

Hans: I am not sure if you understand the transformation of the value of labor-power into the wage of labor. 


[1257] Tim: graded A– Time wage demonstrates the attempt of the employer to differentiate 

employment from slavery by framing himself as a purchaser of hour sized packets


of the labor power commodity, rather than buying the laborer themselves. This relationship 

illustrates the conduct of the labor market more clearly than a discussion of the piece wage 

system. 

Hans: The wage form is misleading in various ways, but this does not mean it intentional deception. 


[1309] Extraterrestrial: graded B– Marx discusses time wages first because it is simpler 

to do so. Time wages are the base way that a worker will get paid. In today’s capitalistic 

society, time wages are a principal way of exploiting workers, where capitalists seek for 

surplus values. Things get more complicated when you try to discuss how many widgets or 

services an employee has produced (piece wage). It is easier to manipulate and exploit using 

time wages. It is easier to collect surplus value using time wages. I do not think, however, 

that it is impossible to exploit workers using piece wages, I just believe it is more difficult to 

do so. 

Hans: Marx says it is easier to exploit workers using piece wages. 


[1371] Batgirl: Marx discusses time wages first because they dictate or provide context 

for piece wages. Time wages are measured hourly, daily or weekly. Where as piece wages 

are simply a transmuted form of time wages, not what one would originally assume piece 

wages are. When first presented, piece wages seem like he is selling his direct labor to the 

capitalist. This is not true. His labor can be measured by time. 

Next Message by Batgirl is [1544].


[1461] Steve: Marx discusses time-wages first because time-wages are more practical 

and more often/widely utilized. Since labor power can be sold according to a concrete time 

frame (daily, hourly, etc.), time-wages neatly define a work schedule and pay schedule. 

Time-wages are more immediately relevant to the working class because they define their 

standard of living and lifestyle. (See: the 24 hour-a-day worker-life revolves around work.) 

Next Message by Steve is [1483]. 



Question 813 Is it true that the laborer is only interested in what he receives, i.e., the overall 

daily wage income, and not interested in what he gives, i.e., the overall length of his work 

day? 

[1053] JEP: Wages and Quality of Work. In terms of the question, I believe that the 

laborer is more interested in what the capitalist system can provide them in wages rather 

than the quality of the labor that they put into it. The laborer is motivated to work in order 

to pay their bills, not by producing quality products for the rest of society. 

However, this leads me to think about two different instances in our modern society in 

which individuals take jobs that offer them the most utility. The first are those scenarios 

are the laborers who take lower paying jobs that offer more utility. Often times highly 

educated and capable people decide that a paycheck is not the most important aspect of


labor, rather offering a quality and beneficial service is of the utmost importance. Such jobs 

that immediately come to mind include teachers, social workers, and nurses. All of these 

careers are lower paying and sometimes taken for granted in our society, but offer some 

satisfaction to those who work these jobs. This willingness to receive less pay contradicts 

my belief that wages drive labor and is the opposite of the second scenario. Laborers who 

are highly capable also find utility in large paychecks. These people are willing to work 

more hours and take on more stress in order to get paid more. 

So why not find a career that is most suited for each individual? Both of the previous 

scenarios are only options for a select group who are often times educated and highly trained. 

In our capitalist society many professions are forced upon laborers out of necessity, rather 

than personal utility. These jobs are often low paying which requires more working hours, 

creating less time for education or training to improve one’s job. In this instance society 

dictates individual’s roles and creates a class system in which the capitalist is able to exploit 

the laborer. The exploited worker is the driving force in a capitalist society and creates the 

belief for me that wages are more important than quality of work. 

Hans: Please read the question. It asks explicitly whether the laborer is interested in the number of hours he has 

to work, it says nothing about the quality of the labor that they put into their work or the satisfaction they derive 

from their work. This misunderstanding of the question is widespread in the archives, but even a common misunderstanding 

is still a misunderstanding. The best explanation of and answer to this question is my [2011fa:745]. 

When Senior said that the workers do not care how long they have to work, he was speaking in code. 

Next Message by JEP is [1126].


[1065] Jess: graded A+ Interests of the Laborers. Although at first glance it appeared 

that Marx was arguing that the laborer only cares about what he received, I soon found out 

that this was not the case. Marx includes a passage within his footnotes that states, “The 

worker is principally interested in what he receives, the nominal sum of his wages, not in 

what he gives, the quantity of labor”. This was the passage that first threw me off, for it 

seemed like a very capitalistic way of thinking. I discovered that this was actually Marx’s 

paraphrase of and comment on a quote from Nassau William Senior from 1830. Senior was 

a British economist who was greatly influenced by Adam Smith, which made the passage 

a lot easier to understand. Hans also states in his annotations to this footnote that “If the 

worker is forced by low wages to accept a long workday, this doesn’t mean that the worker 

is not interested in the length of the workday.” Piecing these two clues together, I came to the 

understanding that no, the laborer is not only interested in what he receives. In a capitalist 

society, the workers have no choice but to accept longer workdays. Under the mentality that 

Senior was proposing, the capitalists justify paying a lower wage to the workers, because 

they may simply lengthen the work day in order to maximize their supply of cheap labor. 

This practice is extremely detrimental to the worker’s health and well-being, because as 

the workday increases, it becomes more intense. The worker, unknowingly, accepts these 

dire circumstances not because he is only interested in making a dollar no matter what, but 

because the structure of a capitalist society has allowed a “compromise” to be made between 

the capitalist and the worker. This compromise is for the worker to get the wages that they 

want, but only if they are forced to lengthen their workday to meet the needs of the capitalist.


Hans: Excellent. I like the little story how you discovered the real meaning of this sentence. I did some editing to 

make it even better, because I hope many will read it. 

Elias: Yeah Jess! 


[1203] RedRyder: Question 813 Is it true that the laborer is only interested in what he 

receives, i.e., the overall daily wage income, and not interested in what he gives, i.e., the 

overall length of his work day? 

The laborer is only interested in what he receives and not what he gives. Let us assume 

that everyone is inclined to, like water, take the path of least resistance. Now man, having 

some necessities and inner desires must relegate himself to work to achieve certain needs 

and wants which we call sustenance. Man will only attain, for the most part, that level of 

capability that allows him to live as such. He does not care how long he must work to acquire 

the funds necessary for such sustenance, he must in fact be first interested in attaining that 

level of income which will allow him his sustenance which for simplicity we will say is 

dependent on his capability. Only after his circumstances change either explicitly (such as 

mine with having a second child) or implicitly thru anticipated change will he ever pursue a 

differing course that will allow him a greater level of sustenance as dictated by his change 

in circumstances. But once having attained a new level of capability, such as thru a college 

degree, he will once again like water, take the path of least resistance ie working whatever 

hours regardless only concerned with personal sustenance and be directed by one thing — 

wages which provide sustenance. The cave man was concerned with one thing — survival.


He did not care if it took him an hour or 24 to get his sustenance, what mattered was his 

sustenance and attaining such. 

Modern man is the same, he will get his sustenance and achieve such thru whatever means 

necessary, this of course being dictated by his personal capabilities. Capabilities will change 

to meet new levels of required sustenance and will only be pursued as necessary. Man 

will continue to be driven by sustenance (wages) before hours. Taking the course of least 

resistance to achieve his required level of sustenance man will work whatever is necessary 

to achieve his sustenance or required wage level. Is he concerned over how much time — 

probably, emotionally. But are his observed actions — hardly, because man must survive. 

Man will always be driven by wages first than hours. Its how college grad choose jobs, 

first we compare salaries followed by hours. Where do grads go? To the money. Because 

sustenance and wages drive man. Not working hours. 

Hans: It is interesting for me to see how intelligent people argue something that is patently absurd. 

By the way, some anthropologists say that cavemen had lots of free time. 

Next Message by RedRyder is [1206]. 

[1211] Shelly: graded A+ Who cares? The workers, that’s who! Of course not. The 

laborer is interested in what he gives also. If he wasn’t, this would be like saying the workers 

do not care if they have to work 18 hours a day as long as they get their paycheck. They 

care, they just can’t do anything about it because the capitalist owns the means to production 

and therefore has the upper hand. 

Hans: Very eloquent without being too wordy.



[1321] AJH: What the labor is truly interested in. The laborer should not only be 

interested in what he receives such as his daily wage income and he should focus more on 

what he gives as determined by his overall work day length because if the laborer earns a 

wage of $10 per hour, $80 per 8 hours of work and can produce a value of $30 per hour he 

would only want to work 2 hours and 40 minutes because that is the time it takes him to 

produce a value equal to his daily wage and after this time he works for free. The necessary 

labor is what the worker looks at and should be focused on rather that his daily wage. In the 

capitalist model the worker is forced to compromise and work long days to receive a wage 

that may have only taken him 3 hours to produce his daily wages. After this necessary labor 

his labor is free because he is producing a surplus value for the firm. 

Hans: Where you had originally “less than 3 hours” I edited it to say “2 hours and 40 minutes” because this more 

precise number gives the reader a better indication how you arrived at it. The number “3 hours” threw me off 

because on first reading I thought you were arguing that it takes you 3 hours to earn, in wages, the value which you 

produce in 1 hour. Although this is true, it is not what you mean. What you mean is that it takes you 2 hours and 

40 minutes to produce the value which you earn in 8 hours. 


[1475] Skylerp: Laborers are interested in their overall daily wage income, but are also 

interested what he/she gives. Laborers want to be paid for their full labor value, not just 

for their labor power. This is why unions and strikes are constantly a problem. If necessary 

labor was equal with labor then firms would have no profits. There must be a relative surplus


labor for firms to function. Also if laborers were not interested in their labor value they would 

work longer days, because they wouldn’t be aware of the relative surplus labor and would 

believe they are being paid for the labor value they are creating or investing. 

Hans: Of course, Marx would not consider unions the problem, but unions are the workers’ response to what is 

really the problem, their separation from the means of production which forces them to sell their labor-power and 

which gives the capitalists the power to keep wages low. 


Question 816 is 677 in 2007SP, 665 in 2008SP, 669 in 2008fa, 700 in 2009fa, 764 in 

2010fa, 786 in 2011fa, and 764 in Answer: 

Question 816 In a system of hourly wages without a set daily minimum of hours, Marx says 

that “the connection between the paid and the unpaid labor is broken.” Explain what he 

means by this. 

[1067] Carol: Brokenness of the paid and unpaid. By stating that “The connection 

between the paid and unpaid labor is broken,” Marx illustrates how the exploitation under 

the capitalist system often forgoes the necessary labor that the worker needs in order to make 

ends meet for the sake of surplus-labor. This is best explained by forming a scenario. For 

example, if a worker’s needs $1,000 a week to support a family, and he/she has a standard 

full employment of 8 hours a day working schedule. We get an hourly wage of $25 for 

the worker by dividing working hours per week (5 days x 8 hours = 40 hours/week) from 

$1,000. Let’s say the worker’s labor creates a value of $50 per hour. The capitalist then gets


a surplus value of $25 dollars per hour. This is already an 100% exploitation on the worker 

for every hour he/she works. 

In the situation Marx gave, the laborer was not allowed to perform the necessary labor 

needed for his/her survival. This example really comes to life during an economic downturn. 

Imagine a company that produces leisure products. During economic downturns, the market 

generally has a reduced demand for leisure products. As result, the capitalists of these companies 

might have to cut production because he/she cannot find markets to sell the products. 

Cutting production often causes the capitalist to cut the number of hours worked by the employees. 

Now, if our worker is told to work 30 hours per week instead of 40 hours, he/she 

would be making $750/week while still being held to the original $1,000/week cost of living. 

The capitalist is still making his/her $25/hour surplus-value labor out of the employee 

while cutting short the worker’s wage by $250 a week. This is particularly exploitative because 

if the capitalist was not trying to maintain his/her $25 surplus value, the capitalist 

could increase the worker’s wage per hour to $33. This would ensure that the worker still 

receives the necessary hours he/she needs in order to make a living while simultaneously 

giving the capitalist a more than decent amount of surplus-value. This example shows that 

in conditions like these, only the laborer is being harmed. 

In [2011fa:715] TKOberle said that the connection between paid and unpaid labor “has 

do with the surplus value that the capitalist receives by only using that worker for a certain 

period of time needed.” The time period does not help retain the connection between paid


and unpaid labor. When Marx is pointing out that the connection is broken, he is saying that 

when times are good, laborers were allowed to meet their cost of living while generating 

surplus value for the capitalist. But when times are hard, the capitalistic still receives equal 

amounts of surplus value without letting the laborer meet his/her cost of living. 

Hans: Very good explanation of this subtle point. Only one quibble. You had “the worker’s labor power value per 

hour is $50,” which is exactly wrong, because this means that the value of the labor-power is $50. What you clearly 

meant to say is that the worker’s labor (not labor-power which is potential labor, but actual labor) creates a value 

of $50 per hour. I edited the correct formulation in, in order not to throw off future readers. 


Exam Question 819 is 683 in 2007SP, 661 in 2007fa, 671 in 2008SP, 675 in 2008fa, 706 

in 2009fa, 770 in 2010fa, 789 in 2011fa, and 770 in Answer: 

Exam Question 819 What is the difference between surplus labor time and overtime? 

[1082] Agloeck: Surplus labor time vs. overtime. Overtime is only a part of wages 

which Hans says is surface category [2007fa:493]. It is usually a higher wage for additional 

hours worked in a single day. Surplus labor-time is a fetish concept that disguised the true 

value of labor-power and helps the capitalist exploit the worker. Hans states, “Since the 

worker’s wage is less than the value produced in that time, every hour, or every minute or 

second, contains surplus-labor, namely, labor for which the worker effectively does not get 

paid. Overtime labor also contains surplus-labor, although a little less than the regular hours 

(before overtime kicks in) due to the overtime premium” [2007fa:493].


Hans: Marx wouldn’t call surplus-value a “fetish concept” but rather a concept which captures the true essence of 

capitalism, a concept which shows that capitalism is a class society. 


[1125] Bimmer: (graded A) Overtime vs Surplus. Overtime labor is labor done following 

a normal work-day’s labor. It’s the extra labor done that is not typically done. The 

typical labor attributed with a regular work day, is normally referred to as 8 hours; yet, in 

different societies and different industries, variations of what a work-day-s labor is, occur. 

Furthermore, overtime labor has a higher pay rate or wage associated with it. 

Surplus labor on the other hand, is the labor that the worker or laborer, does not get 

paid for. A worker’s pay or laborers pay, is less than the value they produce. Essentially 

what this says, is that the worker is paid less than whatever product or value of the product 

they produce. Of course, this can be measured in various times and if you break down the 

worker’s pay, his/her pay will be less than the value produced given a certain time, whether 

it be minutes, seconds, hours, days, years, etc. However, surplus labor, is the only form of 

labor that contains labor for which the worker is not paid for. 

Overtime labor, also employs some surplus-labor. However, overtime contains only a 

small about of surplus-labor compared to the amount contained in normal work-day’s labor 

due to the fact that overtime pays a premium and a laborer or worker is only going to work 

as much overtime as required versus in a regular day where the worker or laborer works via


a schedule. Overtime labor will not be used everyday, it will only be used when beneficial 

and required. 

Hans: I don’t agree that overtime labor contains only a small amount of surplus-labor. The capitalist does not have 

to pay extra benefits for overtime labor, and a longer day means lower costs for depreciation etc. Overtime may 

easily be more profitable than normal time, despite the higher overtime pay. 



2011fa: 

Question 820 In Chapter Twenty, Marx mentions two abuses connected with the wage 

which he thought would be abolished with the legal limitation of the working-day but which 

weren’t. Which are those? 

[1030] Gladwell: graded A The pay’s not great, but... In Chapter 20, Marx mentions two 

abuses connected with wages that he thought would be abolished with the legal limitation 

of the working day, but both of them survived. The first abuse is the desire of the employer 

to pay an hourly wage, instead of a daily wage [2011fa:704]. By paying an hourly wage, 

the employer can use the worker only when he needs him. Paying hourly wages gives the 

capitalist the ability to cut hours at his pleasure, but doing so is to the detriment of the 

worker, who may still have a job, but is now stuck with lower income.


The Second abuse is shown most clearly by a comment I’ve often heard people say: 

“The pay’s not great, but I get lots of overtime.” This abuse is the erosion of the separation 

between normal time and overtime [2010fa:744]. What occurs is that regular wages are held 

low, forcing workers to depend on overtime to sustain themselves. By offering overtime, 

capitalists have an excuse for lowering wages, but what they’re really doing is forcing the 

worker to work longer. 


[1202] Gladwell: graded A+ Hourly Wages and Overtime. The first abuse that was not 

abolished with the legal limitation of the working day is the desire of the employer to pay 

an hourly wage, instead of a daily wage [2011fa:704]. This switch allows the capitalist to 

employ laborers when he needs them, and to cut hours when he doesn’t. The laborer depends 

on this income for survival so the capitalist can now cut hours at the expense of the laborer’s 

livelihood [2012fa:1030] 

The second abuse is the erosion of the separation between normal time and overtime 

[2010fa:744]. By offering overtime, the capitalist has an excuse to hold regular wages low, 

which barely meet the needs of the laborer. The laborer is then forced to work overtime to 

sustain herself, resulting in further exploitation. 

Next Message by Gladwell is [1204].


[1464] AbeFroman: Two Correctable Abuses. The two abuses that Marx thought would 

be abolished were: the hourly wage and overtime pay. Marx saw an hourly wage (as opposed 

to a daily wage) as something that allows capitalists to push for longer working hours. 

Capitalists are able to affect both the amount of hours a worker works and the wage a worker 

is paid, so they will be motivated to lower wages and pay less. In addition, capitalists may 

offer over-time pay but lower wages overall in order to pay for the overtime. Marx noted that 

those who are vulnerable to being forced to work extra hours are also in a position to have 

to take lower pay, so they are not benefiting from either hourly (vs. daily) wage or overtime. 

They are simply tools by which capitalists can extract additional value. 




Question 821 How does Marx argue that longer hours are associated with a lower overall 

daily wage? 

[1070] Jag: Long hours for low wages. Marx argues that the more hours worked results 

in a lower wage for the worker. Marx starts the argument with low wages because when a 

worker is offered a low wage, they agree to work longer hours each day so that they can 

survive, just as Hans notes on page 584 on annotations. The capitalist in a way is manipulating 

the worker into working longer hours by offering such a small wage. A capitalist is not


going to reward a worker for working longer hours because the capitalist’s goal is already to 

find the amount of time a worker is able to work before he practically collapses. If a worker 

has to work longer hours to survive, then he has already accepted lower daily wages. 

Hans: You are describing it as a question of power, the capitalist has the power to manipulate the worker. Marx’s 

explanation is superior because Marx shows that the social heft of the law of value supports the capitalist’s power 

game. 

You explain why longer hours lead to lower hourly wages, not why they also lead to lower daily wages. Look 

at [2008SP:570] for an explanation. 

Message [1070] referenced by [1075]. Next Message by Jag is [1088]. 

[1075] AR: Question 821 feedback. For Marx the longer the working day means generally 

the lower the wages. A Fixed low level of wage will cause the laborer to accept longer 

hours to work in order to fulfill their basic needs. Jag [1070] is correct in stating that “the 

capitalist in a way is manipulating the worker into working longer hours by offering such 

a small wage.” Marx believes that correcting this manipulation can be done by making the 

daily wage and the length of the work day independent and equal across all industries. 

Hans: Interestingly, you like Jag’s wrong perspective of looking at the relationship between capitalist and laborer 

as a personal relationship rather than a class relationship, and you think Marx is promoting reforms of capitalism 

rather than the abolition of capitalism. To me, this seems to be another way of pouring sand over Marx’s incendiary 

message as I said in [169], of denying the necessity following from Marx’s theory for a different social order. 


[1316] Frankie: graded A Double Exploitation. Marx argues that longer hours are associated 

not only with a lower hourly wage but also a lower overall daily wage. Mainly it is


due to the fact that in jobs where longer hours are present are typically the jobs in which the 

worker has little power to negotiate his wage and is forced to accept the lower wage. The 

capitalist also pays an hourly wage thereby creating the longer work days so that the worker 

can earn enough to maintain living expenses. In [2008SP:570] Hans uses a sentence from 

Marx and then elaborates on it validating the argument I wrote above. It says “And now 

comes the important sentence from Marx, p. 689/o: 

‘But the same circumstances which allow the capitalist in the long run to 

prolong the working day also allow him . . . to reduces the price of labor’ 

In other words: those industries in which the working day is long are the industries in 

which the workers are weak. This weakness is likely to manifest itself not only in long 

hours but also otherwise. Therefore we can expect the daily wage to be lower than in those 

industries where the workers are stronger and therefore the working day is shorter, instead 

of being equal as the general law postulates”. 

This shows us why longer working hours are associated with a lower overall daily wage. 


[1394] IrwinFletcher: graded B– Max argues that longer hours are associated with a 

lower overall daily wage by pointing out that if the capitalist withholds the laborer from 

fullfilling emotional and psychological needs then he has surpassed the maximum period of


work. At this point the laborer will enter the principle of diminishing returns. It is unwise to 

do so because the value of the labor begins to steadily decline. 

Hans: You are answering the question why too-low wages diminish the value created during the day. 


[1419] Novatore: I work an eight hour day. I produce the value of my wage in four hours 

while the other four hours produces surplus value, and my daily wage is eighty dollars. 

Now, if my labor hours are extended to sixteen hours I am working twice as long for the 

same wage. Initially I was making ten dollars; after my hours increased I made five dollars 

an hour. 

Hans: In your example, longer hours are associated with a lower hourly wage, but your daily wage remained the 

same. 


[1422] Tiburon: It is the goal of the capitalist to create more revenue and get more labor 

out of the worker. Overall lower wages could come when a worker has to spend longer 

hours at work because the employer extends the working day and/or because extraordinary 

circumstances. There are many circumstances that could cause this effect in the economy. 

Marx gives an example of two of them. In the first case there is an excess supply of labor in 

the market, and this drives employees to work extra hard and in some cases they work extra 

hours to remain valuable to the employer, and thus resulting in a lower overall daily wage. 

The second example is when an economy has an excess supply of the finished commodity, 

which produces low wages as well as it produces low prices.


So not only extending the working day of the laborer brings lower wage averages, but 

this combined with special or extraordinary circumstances can cause this effect in wages. 

Hans: It is not sufficient to say that longer hours are associated with lower daily wages because the capitalists want 

it to be this way. The capitalists always want long hours and low wages. The negative correlation comes from the 

workers’ differential ability to resist this drive for profits. 


Question 826 At first sight, the piece-wage seems to indicate that the worker sells the product 

of his labor to the capitalist. Which evidence does Marx give to support his claim that 

this appearance is false and that the piece-wage is only a transmuted form of time-wages? 

[1068] Curtis: graded A+ Piece-wage is still a wage. Marx first points out, in 692:3, 

that both piece wages and time-wages “exist side by side, at the same time, in the same 

branches of industry.” Because the capitalist prefers to employ labor that ensures that he 

earns a surplus-value, this should be considered a signal that the two forms of wage labor 

are not radically different, and that the capitalist is likely still earning a surplus value 

from the piece-wage laborer. Marx even discovers piece-wage and time-wage laborers in 

the same shop doing the exact same labor [692:4]! This evidence throws doubt on the suggestion 

that piece-wage laborers are selling the product of their labor to the capitalist. The 

reason why, again, is because it seems unlikely that the capitalist would earn a surplus-value 

from his time-wage laborers and no surplus-value from his piece-wage laborers; why are 

the piece-wage laborers employed by him? This suggests the two forms of wages, while


different, seem to serve the same purpose and are of the same substance. The capitalist is 

still purchasing their labor-power; he merely uses a different standard to purchase it. 

Next, Marx shows that piece-wage laborer is working longer hours than the time-wage laborer. 

The piece-wage laborers find themselves working many hours overtime, more so than 

the time-wage laborers, and produce far more surplus-value for the capitalist who employs 

them. As said in the Reports of the Inspectors of Factories in footnote 47, “The work of [the 

piece-wage laborers] for half an hour of the day is equal to one person’s work for 50 hours, 

or 5/6 of one person’s labor in a week, and is a positive gain to the employer”. This suggests 

that the capitalist is merely using the piece-wage form of labor to draw more labor from his 

workers, and is only using a different unit to measure their labor rather than purchasing the 

product of their labor. 

How is it, then, that the capitalist is able to earn a surplus-value from piece-wage labor as 

he does from time-wage labor? The reason why is that the nature of the compensation is the 

same; it is not based on the value of the commodity produced, but on the level of compensation 

to the laborer that is necessary to ensure the sustenance of the worker. The capitalist 

is not paying the worker to receive the commodity the worker has produced, because the 

worker does not own that commodity. The capitalist owns that commodity, and is simply 

paying a wage intended to ensure the worker’s survival, and the only difference between the 

two is the unit for which the wage is payed. 

Message [1068] referenced by [1459]. Next Message by Curtis is [1069].


[1169] SVN: The piece wage workers are pitted against one another. They are paid on the 

quality of the commodity but are also expected to make a certain quantity of the commodity. 

The piece wage laborers are working against one another because there is an incentive to be 

the best producer. Since the piece wage workers are incentivized to be extra productive, their 

labor per hour is more intense than that of the time wage laborers. The capitalist benefits 

because now he has a bunch of piece wage laborers working themselves to the bone everyday 

just to be the best producer they can for the capitalist. The piece wage wage workers have 

incentive to work longer days. So instead of working 10 hour days, they are working 12 

hour days to make sure that the commodities they make are of the highest quality and that 

they made enough of them. 

The capitalist also has time wage workers working with the piece wage workers. The 

two types of workers must work together to produce commodities. The time wage workers 

are paid a flat rate per day regardless of how long they work. So now with the piece wage 

workers working longer hours the time wage workers must work longer hours too. The 

capitalist is then receiving 2 hours per day, per worker of the unpaid labor from the time 

wage laborers plus the increased productivity of the piece wage workers. 

Besides this, the piece wage worker does not even own the means to production. The 

capitalist does, so when the commodity is finished, the capitalist owns the commodity, not 

the laborer. The laborer only owns the labor-power that he sold at a price well beneath what 

market value for it should be.


Therefore the piece wage laborer is not better off than the time wage laborer. He is 

getting exploited just the same, but it is in a slightly different form than the time wage 

laborer. The piece wage laborer’s wage is still at the discretion of the capitalist and subject 

to his standards, so the piece wage laborer is not working for himself in any shape or form, 

just working harder than he has to for the capitalist. 

Hans: The wage is not at the discretion of the capitalist. The daily wage must be enough to cover the daily 

reproduction cost of the laborer. 


[1185] Villa: graded A The means of production is still owned by the capitalist. The 

worker has sold his labor-power and is compensated in the form of piece-wage just as with 

time-wage. Now it being transmuted from time-wage, I believe, is because piece-wage 

employees can be further exploited; they tend to work longer hours, compete against other 

piece-wagers, thus driving up the average products expected to be made and create more 

surplus value for the capitalist. They both serve the purpose of supplying surplus labor to 

the capitalist, they tend to work side by side for the capitalist. 


[1363] Batgirl: Piece wages and time wages are very similar in the fact that they “exist 

side by side, at the same time”, Marx states in 692:3. They even can exist in the same 

workplace, happening at the same time (692:4). This debunks the impression that piece 

wage laborers are selling the product of their labor to the capitalist. If they both exist in the 

same work place then one could assume that the capitalist is earning a surplus value from


both these types of workers. Thus they are of the same cloth, so similar in their forms they 

are serving the same purpose yet different in the delivery of payment for labor. So yes, piece 

wages and time wages are different in the fact they are different measurements or vehicles 

for delivery however piece wages are a weaker measurement for labor. 


[1459] Steve: The piece-wage is only a transmuted form of time-wages because the worker 

is selling his labor-power, not the product of his labor-power, to the capitalist. Many times, 

the piece-wage will be used by the capitalist to make a higher profit—as Curtis [1068] points 

out, ‘the piece-wage laborer is working longer hours than the time-wage laborer...the capitalist 

is merely using the piece-wage form of labor to draw more labor from his workers, 

and is only using a different unit to measure their labor rather than purchasing the product 

of their labor.’ 

Hans: Your in-class answer had the following piece of empirical evidence: “piece wages are secondary to, dependent 

on time wages. Commissions are incentives in addition to regular hourly wages.” This is indeed the kind of 

evidence Marx used. 

I consider it more convincing evidence than the longer hours worked by piece wage workers in your resubmission. 

Many company exectutives work long hours. Long hours are proof of exploitation only if you know that the 

worker does not get the full value they produce during this time. 

Next Message by Steve is [1460]. 

Question 830 is 680 in 2008fa, 711 in 2009fa, and 775 in 2010fa: 

Question 830 Why is the form of piece wage just as irrational as that of time wages?


[1069] Curtis: (graded A) Irrationality of piece-wages and time-wages. First, how are 

wages, in general, “irrational”? The word “irrational” does not refer to the decision making 

process of the capitalist; it’s perfectly rational for the capitalist to earn surplus-value from 

the labor-power he has purchased by requiring that labor-power to give more value than he 

paid. It is also not “irrational” for the worker to accept employment by the greedy capitalist; 

the capitalist controls the means of production, and the worker cannot earn a living with his 

labor-power without this means of production, and so, because he is trapped, it is rational 

for him to accept employment even though he’s being cheated. It would be irrational for him 

to reject employment and starve. So, the word “irrational” must not refer to the character 

of either the employer or the worker. This seems to be the error made by Capitalist in 

[2009fa:789]; she seems to write as if it is the individual participants in the capitalist system 

who are irrational, which is not the case of either of them. 

As Hans said in his comment to [2009fa:789], “[w]hen [Marx] calls the piece wage an 

irrational form he simply means that there is no connection between the value of the product 

and the piece wage paid for the product.” This is the case for both piece- and time- form of 

wages. Neither piece-wages nor time-wages are based upon the value of the end-product, 

and therefore both are considered “irrational”. The word “irrational” refers to the nature of 

the exchange, not the state-of-mind of the participants of the exchange, and the nature of the 

exchange for both piece-wages and time-wages is the same. 

Message [1069] referenced by [1323]. Next Message by Curtis is [1150].


[1323] Jason: graded A+ The Irrational Piece Wage. As Curtis [1069] explained to us, 

the form of piece-wages is not irrational because the participants in the piece-wage transaction 

have an irrational decision making process. The capitalists are trying to generate 

surplus-value. The workers, having no access to means of production sufficient to sustain 

themselves, must work for a wage, in whatever form, to acquire the means to purchase their 

subsistence. 

Instead, what makes the form of piece-wages just as irrational as that of time-wages is 

the fact that the value produced per piece has no connection to the equivalent the worker 

receives in the form of his or her piece-wages - much like the form of time-wages has no 

connection to the value produced in a given time. 

There is the misconception the capitalist is paying the worker for the product of his or her 

labor with piece-wages, but really the worker is still selling their labor-power (the same for 

time-wages). Each piece contains surplus-labor - effectively unpaid labor - just like a time 

increment for which a worker is paid a time-wage contains surplus-labor. It is this disconnect 

between the value of labor-power, and the value produced by labor that Marx says is just as 

irrational in piece-wages as time-wages. 

The wage, no matter the form, is mystified, causing the worker to believe they sell labor to 

the capitalist, when they actually sell their labor-power. This makes invisible the exploitation 

of labor by capital.


First Message by Jason is [3]. 

Question 831 is 677 in 2008SP, 681 in 2008fa, 712 in 2009fa, and 776 in 2010fa: 

Question 831 Explain how piece wages can become a “most fertile source for wage theft 

and capitalist cheating.” 

[1054] Basil: Piece Wages for Bankers. The capitalist has the opportunity to cheat 

the worker and steal wages because, using piece wages, the capitalist is able to measure 

the quality and quantity of output arbitrarily. In Annotations [P 595] it describes that piece 

wages measure “the labor expended by the worker by the number of pieces he has produced.” 

This is backwards, as the labor expended by the worker should be measured by the amount 

of labor-power expended in a given period of time. 

A present day analogy to time wages and piece wages is hourly wages v/s a wage paid on 

commission. Both of these forms result in surplus-labor and profits for the capitalist, but the 

structure and terms of the wage are very different. 

The example of a time wage used by Marx, which correlates to our understanding of an 

hourly wage, is a working day containing 12 hours, of which 6 are paid, 6 unpaid. The 

example of a piece wage, which is like payment on commission, assumes the value of a 

single piece is 6 cents, where the worker receives 3 cents per piece. The surplus in both


cases result in profit for the capitalist. From these examples, we can see how an increase in 

the length of the workday in both cases can increase profits for the capitalist. 

But the reason why the piece wages are the most appropriate form for the capitalist mode 

of production is because they not only have the tendency to extend the length of the workday 

as time wages do, but also the tendency to intensify labor. In order to demonstrate the truth 

of this statement, I will use a present day example. 

Most people may think of investment bankers on Wall Street as the quintessential example 

of the capitalists who exploit and hold down the proletariat, but I am going to show that this 

is a misconception, and that bankers fall into the capitalist system of exploitation just as 

much, if not more, than any other profession—primarily due to the piece wage. 

Investment banks are very structured hierarchies that utilize both time wages and piece 

wages to exploit their workers. At the top are the shareholders, who manage the company 

through the CEO and other executives. At the bottom are analysts, and in between are 

different levels of associates, managers, vice presidents, and directors. 

Analysts are hired on and receive most of their compensation through a salary, or time 

wage, based on their hours worked. As they move up the ranks, and become associates, 

VPs, etc. their wages shift away from a time wage and more toward compensation based on 

commission or a “bonus,” which correlate to the piece wage described by Marx, but with the 

added component of meeting a quota.


The bonus received by bankers gives them an incentive to increase the intensity of their 

work in order to meet expectations. That is why bankers often work 100+ hour weeks, and 

require a very high level of education and skill. Bcause the structure is a hierarchy, and 

directors oversee VPs, and VPs oversee associates, the intensity of labor by the workers directly 

under an individual directly correlate to that individual’s compensation. This drives 

each level of the bank to intensify the labor of the workers below them. Or as Marx describes, 

“Here the exploitation of the worker by capital takes place through the medium of 

the exploitation of one worker by another” (Annotations P 597). 

Even the CEO is pressured by the incentives of shareholders, and is legally obligated, to 

maximize market value in order to receive compensation. This is why “piece wages therefore 

form the basis for . . . a hierarchically organized system of exploitation and oppression” 

(Annotation P 596). So, the common misconception is that bankers themselves are the 

capitalists, when in reality the majority shareholders of the company are the capitalists, and 

bankers fall into the capitalist cycle of oppression. 

I recognize that compensation for bankers are much different than the wages of people 

working “blue collar” jobs. I credit that to the fact that banking is educated labor, requiring 

much more skill than uneducated labor. My purpose was to show that bankers on Wall Street 

still fall into the capitalist system, and that they are a quintessential example of how piece 

wages can become a “most fertile source for wage theft and capitalist cheating.”


Hans: Your examples illustrate how piece wages increase intensity of labor, not only among productive workers 

but even among bankers. But with the exception of a brief mention in your first sentence, which cries out for an 

elaboration, your entire submission says nothing about wage theft and cheating. As long as you answer question 831 

and not 836, you should have brought examples of wage theft and cheating rather than examples of intensification 

of labor. 

Message [1054] referenced by [1059]. Next Message by Basil is [1138]. 

[1059] ImmanentMaterialist: Piece Wages and Exploitation. As opposed to timewages, 

piece-wages have the potential to increase the degree of exploitation perpetrated 

by the capitalist to a significantly greater degree. Under the standards of the piece-wage 

system, for a worker to be paid for the creation of a particular commodity (or component of 

a commodity) it must reach a certain level of quality. This works to prevent workers from 

churning out poorly made products and ensures a certain standard for the workers to reach 

for in a manner that is self-enforcing and regulative. As Basil notes, this has a “tendency to 

intensify labor” [1054]. 

According to Hans, this practice, which is one of the more distinct features of the piecewage, 

is such “that the quality control of the product” itself comes to be built into the labor 

process (595:1). As Marx puts it, “the quality of the labor is here controlled by the work” 

(694:1). Such a practice opens the door for reductions in wages and allows the capitalist to 

cheat their workers to an ever-greater extent. This potentiality of the piece-wages is due in 

large part to the fact that the intensity of labor necessary for the worker to ‘earn’ his keep 

is pre-determined. This pre-determined standard is fixed and determined by “experience”


which stamps each commodity with a value in line with its socially accepted labor-time. So, 

with advances in the use-value form of a commodity (changes in fashion, style, popularity, 

etc.) that necessitate adjustments in the production process, a “competition” is triggered 

between the laborers and the capitalist in regards to the appropriate social labor-time for 

its production (694:2). Once this is determined (so, commodity-X is now considered to be 

worth a half-hour of labor-time) this becomes the standard by which all workers, regardless 

of prior experience, are judged. If they are unable to meet this new marker of production 

they are let go. 

This in turn introduces two important changes within the labor process: that of revising 

the role of the capitalist as supervisor, and that of mediated exploitation. In regards 

to the first, as noted above, the worker is forced to regulate his own productivity for fear 

that lapses will lead either to a deficit in wages which will make difficult his subsistence 

and/or his termination. Under the piece-wage then the “superintendence of labor” by the 

capitalist becomes superfluous; the factory owner’s dominance over the laborer becomes 

less present visibly as the workers necessarily becomes charged with furthering the degree 

of their own exploitation (695:1). Further, this move towards the piece-wage allows for the 

role of parasitic middleman to interpose themselves between the capitalist and the laborer. 

These middlemen, who operate as “chiefs” of groups of laborers, make contracts with the 

capitalist for the production of a certain amount of commodities. The contractor is able to


hire and fire laborers at will in order to ensure that only the most seasoned and skilled workers 

operate within his outlet, and his own profits are generated from the difference between 

what the capitalist pays for their labor and the wages which the contractor actually allows his 

workers to be paid. This mode of exploitation, a mode made more capable of actualization 

due to the introduction of the piece-wage, becomes one that is more insidious that thought 

previously, as in this case, “the exploitation of the worker by capital takes place through the 

medium of the exploitation of one worker by another” (695:1). 

Next Message by ImmanentMaterialist is [1146]. 

[1073] Hans: Is this form of cheating too obvious to mention? Wage-theft happens 

when the capitalist charges penalties for shoddy work not because the work is too shoddy 

but because the capitalist uses the quality of the work as an excuse to pay lower wages. 

Neither of the two answers said this clearly enough for my taste, therefore I am sending this 

little note. Does anyone know real-life examples of this? 

Shelly: An example that I can think of would be paying piece wage to a worker for building cabinets. After the 

worker completes the project, the person paying him could easily assess the work and find a flaw (or make one up). 

In fact, this happens a lot in construction. After the product is complete, the contractor or builder often find a teeny 

tiny problem (which is often unavoidable since humans are not robots) and use this to pay the worker half the price 

promised. They base their decision on quality of work when really they might be over-budget on the project and 

looking for ways to reduce costs. 

Hans: Yes, Shelly’s example is a good one. After reading GTIguy’s [1093] it occurred to me that simply setting 

the piece wage so low that only the most attentive and dexterous workers get normal wages and a normal worker


gets substandard wages, is also a form of wage theft. Such a too-low piece wage cannot be spotted as easily as say 

a time wage of $5 an hour. 


[1093] GTIguy: Incentive Pay Bordering on Wage Theft. Here is an example as requested 

in [1073]. My wife works for a company that pays many of its employees on a piece 

rate scale and I have witnessed this first hand. Her work is a form of data entry where she 

enters scanned copies of medical claims (PDF format) into a database. She works directly 

for company A who receives work from company B. Company B expects a minimum accuracy 

rating of 95%. They enforce this by frequently and randomly checking the medical 

form against what was entered into the database. Company A, in an effort to keep their client 

happy, expects a 100% accuracy rating and established a pay structure to enforce this benchmark. 

There are three pay tiers within company A’s pay structure. The “A” tier (highest pay 

rate per claim) is achieved when the worker is accurate between 99 1/2% and 100%, “B” tier 

is 99 1/2% and 99%, and “C” tier (lowest pay rate per claim) is 99% and below. Company 

A also has its own quality control team that also conducts random audits of the claims. The 

employees are paid per claim processed at a rate equal to their current quality tier. 

Each claim consists of roughly 150 fields. An incorrect entry in any of the fields results 

in the entire claim being flagged as failed. On average my wife is capable of processing 

about 900 claims in a two week pay period. That means that she is only allowed to make 4 

mistakes out of roughly 135,000 entry fields in order to make it into the “A” pay tier.


The pay structure rewards employees in two different ways, speed and quality. If you 

process claims very fast you are more likely to make a mistake and get bumped to a lower 

pay tier, however, if you process claims very slowly to remain in the high pay tier you will 

likely not be able to process as many claims. Each employee is left to find their own happy 

medium. Company A reaps the benefit of both types of employee. The slow employees 

keep the quality standard high while the fast employees churn through the claims. Company 

B remains happy because Company A is providing high quality work at a fast pace but 

Company A does not necessarily pass on the rewards to its workers. 

Hans: This is a sophisticated method of speedup by playing the fast and the precise workers against each other. If 

rate “C” is so low that a worker with 95% accuracy, i.e., a worker who meets company A’s quality requirements, 

gets a substandard wage, then it is also wage theft. 

Message [1093] referenced by [1073] and [1159]. Next Message by GTIguy is [1290]. 

[1094] Littlerock: graded A A Real Life Example. Hans [1073] asked if anyone has a 

real life example. I believe I do. I have two examples from my current place of employment 

both of which reflect this kind of cheating, and of which the second infuriates me more 

than the first for obvious reasons. I work at a third-party call center that is contracted to 

take customer service calls for Verizon Wireless. First of all, Verizon Wireless pays my 

call center by how many calls we take, so it is a piece rate. One way in which they cheat, 

however, is by not counting calls that are transferred to a different department. They also 

set rules as to when we must transfer to other departments of Verizon Wireless. Many times 

these calls are only transferred after an extensive amount of time has already been spent by


us on other vital parts of the calls. So regardless of whether or not we performed the same 

amount of useful labor on transfer calls as on other calls, they are not counted in what my 

call center as a whole gets reimbursed. 

The second example that I have concerns the way that the call center I work at pays us. We 

are also partly paid by a piece rate. People whose calls are, on average, less than 8 minutes 

long get paid approximately 2 dollars an hour higher than people whose calls are longer than 

that. The average is taken daily. Also, every day, a survey is sent automatically, by random, 

to one of the customers with whom we spoke. Part of the survey asks if we resolved their 

reason for their call. We are paid, in part, based off of the percentage of people who said 

“yes” for the last 20 surveys. What the breakdown amounts to, is there is approximately a 

$2 decrease in pay for every “no” that we receive. That $2 decrease in our hourly wage lasts 

for the next 20 days. 

While this appears to make sense on a surface level, imagine the implications. If a particulary 

difficult customer calls in, and I have not yet received my results for the survey for the 

day, I will take as long as it takes on that call to try and make that customer happy with me 

so I will not fail my survey. This requires much more mental exertion and emotional stress 

than a normal call, resulting in a higher amount of labor power expended in a shorter amount 

of time. Additionally, that call is likely to last much longer than a normal call, thus raising 

my average call time for that day, thus risking a $2 per hour decrease in my pay for that day. 

If the customer, despite my best efforts, says that I did not resolve the reason for their call,


my pay is decreased by $2 per hour for the next 20 days as well. What that results in, then, 

is a substantial (for me it’s substantial) pay decrease for a call which requires a much greater 

expenditure of labor power than the other easier calls for which I would not end up with a 

pay decrease. 

Previously this was partly remedied through a dispute process in which, if we could 

demonstrate that we had attempted everything possible and strictly followed all of the rules 

which Verizon and my call center impose, then a failed survey could be removed and our pay 

would not be docked. That was changed, however. There is no more dispute process, and 

thus even if on a call we expended much more labor power than usual, and even if we tried 

much harder resulting in a much higher quality call than usual, our pay is still significantly 

reduced. That way, we get paid less for working harder. 

In general, the long calls are the difficult calls, and the short calls are the easy calls, so 

a person with a low call handling time has most likely expended less labor power than a 

person with a high average call handling time on any given time. The capitalist is able to use 

piece rate to rob us by paying us less the harder we work. 

Message [1094] referenced by [1159]. Next Message by Littlerock is [1283]. 

[1159] Curtis: graded A Piece-wage exploitation: what I missed on the exam. The 

following was my answer on the exam:


Piece-wages appear to be the sale of a commodity by the laborers, but really 

are just another form of wage. Whereas with time-wages, workers 

are less likely to work overtime–and if they do, they earn a higher wage– 

piece-wages encourage working overtime and at the same rate as during the 

normal working day, allowing the capitalist to extend the working day and 

earn even more surplus value while at the same time paying the same wage. 

Thus piece-wages can be even more exploitative than time-wages. 

After reading answers in the archives, I see that my answer is insufficient. “Wage-theft”, 

as Hans explains in [1037], occurs when the capitalist does not pay a full wage for “shoddy” 

work, claiming quality to be the reason for the reduction of the wage. Numerous real-life 

examples were given, by Shelly in [1037] (the comments), GTIguy in [1093], and Littlerock 

in [1094]. Bone in [2009fa:788] gives perhaps the best explanation as how wage-theft in 

piece-wages can occur; the capitalist reduces wages for “poor quality”, and since the capitalist 

is the “judge, jury, and executioner” in regards to quality control, the capitalist has 

plenty of opportunities to effectively steal from the workers’ wages for unrealistic expectations 

in quality ([1093] explains how 99% quality is graded as “C” for quality). It’s a 

pathetic excuse by the capitalist to earn more surplus-value. 

Another reason that capitalists cheat was presented by Ashley in [2008fa:935]; should 

the worker become more productive, he may see a temporary increase in his income. But 

the capitalist will adjust the piece-wage such that the worker’s pay is reduced to the same


level but now requires much more intensity to maintain. The capitalist thus earns more 

surplus-value from the worker for the same wage, and the worker is further cheated of his 

labor-power. 

Hans: Marx distinguishes between exploitation and theft, although they often occur together. Exploitation does 

not have to include theft, i.e., it need not violate the ownership principles of a commodity society. Theft is such a 

violation, and of course the capitalist are not the only thieves in this society. 

First Message by Curtis is [4]. 

[1336] KapitalSB: graded B– Marx starts his discussion on time wages because time is 

limited. However with piecework wage how much is produced not on how long it takes, 

the capitalist only pays the piecework. Piece wage is considering wage theft because the 

capitalist is able to exploit the worker, thus the capitalist is cheating and taking away time 

from the worker. In Das Kaptial we learn that time is one of the most valuable assets the 

laborer has. When workers accept piece wages he is at mercy of the capitalist. Therefore the 

worker is subject to the capitalist stealing wages from the worker. 

Hans: Marx distinguishes between exploitation and wage theft. Not every exploitation takes the form of wage 

theft. 


[1452] Jag: Piece wage is based off the quality of the laborer’s work. Piece wage can 

become a “most fertile source for wage theft and capitalist cheating” because if the laborer’s 

final product is not perfect or has some flaw, the capitalist can refuse to pay him for his lack 

of production or lack creating a profit producing product. So although the laborer has been


working all day, he still may not be paid. Piece wage also causes a high level of competition 

amongst laborers which just leads to a higher level of productivity and higher profits for the 

capitalists. 


[1496] Chris: Peace wages can become a “most fertile source for wage theft and capitalist 

cheating” when the worker does not produce as many pieces as possible during the day. 

Meaning if the worker works very hard for the first part of the day and produces 30 pieces 

and then only produces 10 pieces in the second half of the day then wage theft has occurred. 

The worker was not constantly working to their potential. 

Capitalist cheating can occur when the capitalist does not pay the worker for each piece 

produced by not counting each piece properly or correctly. The capitalist could deny payment 

for “improper” pieces or those not “done to standard.” There is a lot of room for 

disagreement between the capitalist and the worker because the capitalist wants to pay as 

little as possible. 

Hans: Do I understand you right that in your view the worker commits theft if he does not work as hard as he can 

all day, even if he is paid only for his actual output? 

The word “wage theft” in the question was intended to mean theft by the capitalist not paying the wages which 

the worker is entitled to, i.e., it is similar to “capitalist cheating.” 

First Message by Chris is [182].



2011fa: 

Question 832 Time wages and piece wages have opposite effects on the competition between 

workers. Explain. 

[1098] AndyUte: graded A– Hourly Vs. Commission. This was a fun chapter for me to 

read, and a question for which I was excited to come across and be able to answer. Marx 

explanation of Piece Wage and Time Wage is spot on. 

The effects on those that earn time wages and piece wages contrast each other so much 

because of the components on which the capitalist bases the wage. When a capitalist pays 

time wages he evaluates the overall labor power of his workers over a certain amount of 

time and then sets the time wage to an amount that is profitable for the capitalist and is a 

satisfactory amount for the laborer. On Page 685 in Capital Marx says that “Given the price 

of labour, on the other hand, the daily or weekly wage depends on the quantity of labour 

expended daily or weekly.” The time wage is based on an overall team performance from 

the laborers and is not at all dependent on individual labor efficiency. This encourages team 

work and a more collective efficiency. 

On the other hand, when a capitalist chooses to implore piece wages, he chooses to entice 

competition among laborers. Regarding Marx, in Capital he says that “the piece wage is 

nothing but a converted form of the time-wage, just as the time-wage is a converted form of


the value or price of labour-power.” The piece wage pays and rewards individual efficiency 

and accomplishment. The laborer is paid according to his production. This is a way that 

capitalists can take advantage of laborers. Through piece wages laborers continually strive 

to increase their production and efficiency so that they can make more than their colleagues. 

This increases production and profits for the capitalist. 

I currently work for a company that pays both time and piece wages. We are paid commission 

for sales on top of an hourly base rate. There is definitely some insights I gather 

from my experience. First, when sales are hard to come by my coworkers and I are still 

able to maintain a healthy and friendly working environment because we know we are still 

earning an hourly base rate for trying to sale. At the same time, competition and competition 

thrive based on the commission we earn. Seeing coworkers earn extra commission pushes us 

to work harder and earn more than what we make hourly. I have been able to see the benefits 

of both the collective efforts rough about by time wages as well as the competitiveness of 

piece wages. 

Hans: While reading chapters 21 and 22 don’t forget chapters 6 and 19! In other words, while looking at the 

surface relations don’t forget what they are the surface of. You did forget this when you wrote: “the capitalist ... 

sets the time wage to an amount that is profitable for the capitalist and is a satisfactory amount for the laborer.” 

According to Marx, the capitalist cannot “set” the time wage but the time wage is determined by the law of value: 

the hourly wage is the weekly value of labor-power divided by the number of hours worked on average per week. 

Next Message by AndyUte is [1102].


[1272] Smalls: When employees are paid time wages, they are often rewarded for their 

skill. An employee on his first day would make less per hour, than someone on the job five 

years. The employee with more experience should produce more for the capitalist. The 

capitalist is willing to pay more for the experience in exchange for the additional surplus 

value he will collect from the experienced worker. Piece wages create competition among 

workers. A young, eighteen-year-old worker, his first week on the job, may be able to 

work harder, faster, and produce more than a forty-year-old worker with twenty years of 

experience. This will create unhealthy competition between the two workers. If piece wages 

are paid and one worker can produce more than the others, there is competition among 

workers that creates a negative working environment, but the workers need one another. The 

young worker needs training or has lots of questions, and if he is constantly outproducing the 

experienced worker, the experienced worker will not want to train or help the new worker. 

When workers are paid for their time and experience they are willing to help the capitalist 

train workers. The competition of piece wages between the two workers will create problems 

for the capitalist. 


[1280] Shickadance: graded A Time wages and piece wages are used in measuring the 

labor of the worker to ensure that the capitalist is getting the full use of the labor-power 

which he purchased. This is how they are similar: however, the way in which they foster 

competition among a company make them different.


Time wage earners all earn the same amount, no matter the output. Therefore, it becomes 

the desire of the time wage worker to unite with his fellow laborers to produce the required 

yield because there is no incentive to “out-produce” the people in their same work environment. 

When time wage workers have a goal of compiling 30 accounts before the end of 

the month, competition loses its appeal and the laborers will labor together to accomplish 

their goal. This type of wage compensation makes competition lose its appeal. Piece wage 

earners are motivated to go above and beyond everyone else because their earnings are directly 

related to output. As someone in a sales company sells more and more, he will earn 

more than those he “outproduces” and will receive recognition and extra compensation for 

his diligence. This type of wage breeds heavy competition amongst workers. 


[1379] Ruffian: Time wages and piece wages have opposite effects due in part to the 

method a capitalist bases the wage he pays his employees. When the capitalist pays wages 

based on the time spent producing he considers the overall effectiveness of all his workers 

over a set amount of time. He can then dictate how much to pay the employees based on 

minimal production. This in turn forces the worker to only accomplish enough production to 

maintain his/her current lifestyle and thus maintain employment. In piece labor he options 

for competition amongst the workers. Works are no longer paid based on the time they put 

in, but the amount produced. This favors and rewards a worker’s efficiency and production. 

This is of course beneficial for the capitalist as increased competition and efficiency amongst 

workers results in higher profits for the capitalist.


Hans: The economic law that workers don’t make more money than that to preserve their lifestyle does not come 

from a lack of effort by the workers. Marx says this is a systemic law based on the structure of capitalism. 

First Message by Ruffian is [620]. 

[1380] Amcelhiney: Time wages hold less motivation for workers to increase productivity. 

These workers will get paid the same amount regardless of their productivity. Time wages 

take away the competition which increase production. Piece wages motivate the worker to 

produce as much as possible to earn as much as possible. Piece wages increase competition 

while increasing productivity. While different pay wages may benefit the worker more than 

others it is clear that the value the workers create is still exploited by the capitalist. 

Hans: This sounds as if piece wages allow the workers to make more money than time wages. Your in-class 

answer says this explicitly, it says: “Piece wages allow the worker to be the only thing holding them back from 

the opportunity to make more money.” Marx does not think so. The fact that the capitalist owns the means of 

production is what holds the workers back from the opportunity to make more money, whether this money be paid 

in time wages or piece wages. Time wages and piece wages are just different ways for the capitalist to get as much 

labor out of the worker as possible. 

Next Message by Amcelhiney is [1382]. 

Question 833 is 690 in 2007SP: 

Question 833 Is there something wrong with the worker’s sense of “liberty, independence 

and self-control” engendered by piece-wages?


[1076] Tim: graded A Thoughts on the liberation of working for piece-wage. My sense 

is that the notion of liberty inspired by working for piece-wage is at best a fallacy, and at 

worst a force which undermines the well being of the worker in general. The tendency of 

this scheme is to perpetually lengthen the duration of the work day and pit workers against 

one another; according to Marx, “It is moreover now the personal interest of the laborer to 

lengthen the working-day, since with it his daily or weekly wages rise” (670). Workers who 

fail to surrender increasing amounts of their time to keep pace with their more enthusiastic 

peers find themselves falling behind the accepted average level of output resulting in the less 

willing workers’ elimination; or at least I assume this to be the eventual outcome. In addition 

to an ever lengthening and intensifying work day, the competition inspired by this wage 

scheme undermines worker solidarity and assists the capitalist in dividing the interests of his 

workers. I tend to think that the competition generated in this manner to be a constant advantage 

for the capitalist. I therefore disagree with Orestes’ [2007SP:937] assertion that worker 

competition in large quantities would undermine the interests of the capitalist. Orestes argues 

that overly competitive workers would interfere with operations by refusing to work 

together and would thus compromise the output potential of a given production scheme. It 

would seem an odd production configuration indeed if this were the case. My assumption 

is that as the necessity for cooperation increases, so too does the likelihood that time-wages 

will be employed or some other coercion might be employed to incentivize civility. 

Hans: I think Orestes agrees with you that competition between workers is generally good for the capitalists. But 

I agree with Orestes that too much competition between the workers may poison the work atmosphere so much that


it reduces overall productivity. Capitalists are certainly aware of this. I remember that Lester Thurow in his 1983 

book Dangerous Currents talks about this. The fact that it is so important to the capitalists how the workers get 

along shows how much power the working class would have if only they decided to rise up in solidarity. 




Question 838 If the capitalists make higher profits due to technical innovation, should the 

workers get part of this? 

[1058] Snowball: graded A Laborers as Machines. While I tend to side with the workers 

throughout this course, I believe the answer to this question leans more heavily to the 

capitalists. When a laborer applies for a job and begins employment, he is often under the 

illusion that he is paid for his product, when, in fact, he has simply sold his labor-power to 

the capitalist. 

When a capitalist upgrades technology, he essentially makes better use of the commodity 

labor-power he bought. Though it may be unflattering, a way to think of this is that the workers 

are reduced to machines that the capitalist has purchased. The capitalist has made his 

“machines” more efficient while the “machines” remain with the same initial labor-power. 

Of course, there are exceptions to this rule. If the worker creates the technical innovation, 

then the profit should go to him. In fact, the entirety of the profit should go to him. If, for


example, a worker types documents, and discovers an innovation that makes him type twice 

as fast, he should be rewarded for it. 

The capitalist can certainly pay more if he prefers, but he is in no way obligated to do so. 

He bought labor-power at a certain price and has no duty to his “machines” to pay more. 

Hans: Are you assuming the better technology is created by the capitalist? See my [2011fa:713]. 

Message [1058] referenced by [1135]. Next Message by Snowball is [1134]. 

[1071] Frankie: graded A Double Edged Sword... The answer to the question is not as 

simple as some of the past answers have led one to believe. There are a multitude of factors 

that play into whether or not the proceeds from a technical innovation should be shared or 

whether the capitalists should keep all the profits. 

In answer [2009fa:763] Kay correctly states that “in no way are capitalists obligated to 

share the higher profits with their employees.” This statement is correct as noted by Hans, 

however the question is, as I interpret it, referring to more of a moral stance of should the 

additional profits be shared, not if the capitalist has an obligation to do so. The resounding 

answer within the archive seems to be that if the worker helps contribute to the technical 

innovation, or if the worker adds to the process then they should receive part of the higher 

profits. Others like Chad in answer [2008fa:899] think that because the capitalist is taking 

all the risk, in regards to the investment of the technical innovation, that the capitalist should 

not share these higher profits with the worker.


My answer in part to this would be, does the worker play any part in the higher output or 

technical innovation leading to the higher profits? If so, then I believe the worker to be entitled 

to a share of these higher profits. As to how much of a share that will be the decision of 

the capitalist. However, if the worker does not contribute to the higher profits, that meaning 

either in the technical innovation itself or in the following higher production resulting from 

the innovation, that the worker should not receive any additional compensation for his work. 

If the worker continues to provide the same amount of output, resulting in similar profit until 

the advent of the technical innovation, why should he receive more compensation? The reverse 

is true as well, if the worker does contribute to a higher profit why should he not then 

receive more compensation? Karl states this well in [2011fa:691] saying “If the workers 

had a hand in the technical innovation then yes they should get a part of the profit. If the 

workers had nothing to do with the technical innovation then they should not receive part 

of the profit. Technical innovation comes from people, and the person or group of people 

should receive part of the profit from their innovation.” 

In short the worker should receive the extra marginal profit, in correlation with the extra 

marginal profit he provides. 


[1079] Hans: The pitfalls of not seeing things from a class perspective. All answers 

this Semester and most answers in the archives make the mistake of considering technical 

progress to be something the capitalists bring to the labor process. Perhaps in future


Semestes I should assign chapter Thirteen, about co-operation, for reading too, because in 

this chapter Marx explains that the co-operation of the workers is a productive force in addition 

to the workers’ individual contributions. The capitalitst cream off the benefits of this 

productive force for themselves, because they oversee the co-operation of the workers. As 

long as the workers sell their labor to the capitalists one by one, they have no standing to 

claim this benefit of their joint labor process for themselves. And your answers looked at 

the worker as one individual selling his or her labor-power. This is not the right way to look 

at it. 

Marx claims it is more accurate if the workers see themselves as members of the working 

class, and if they see capitalism as a system in which the class of owners of the means of 

production exploits the working class. It is not a relationship between individuals but a 

class relation. The benefits of co-operation should go to the working class, because it is the 

workers who co-operate, not the capitalists. If the wage-labor relations allows the capitalists 

to take it for themselves, then this is just an additional aspect of the exploitation of the 

working class. 

What is true for co-operation in general is also true for technical progress, which is impossible 

individually and necessarily a co-opeative process. Capitalists are rich not because 

they produce wealth, but because social relations exist which channel into their pockets the 

wealth created in this society, which should belong to everyone. It is high time that the real 

creators of this wealth, the working class, call them on this.



[1135] Snowball: graded B+ Profits for the ”Machines” When a laborer applies for a 

job and begins employment, he is often under the illusion that he is paid for his product, 

when, in fact, he has simply sold his labor-power to the capitalist. 

When a capitalist upgrades technology, he essentially makes better use of the commodity 

labor-power he bought. Though it may be unflattering, a way to think of this is that the workers 

are reduced to machines that the capitalist has purchased. The capitalist has made his 

“machines” more efficient while the “machines” remain with the same initial labor-power. 

Does this mean the capitalist should not share his higher profits? He is not obligated to, 

of course, but he should. The capitalist may have the means of production and the capital to 

conduct the research that leads to technical innovation, but that innovation would be impossible 

without the workers. The capitalist must have the ability to observe the workers and 

learn from them before any technical advancement is possible. 

On a side note, if the worker creates the technical innovation, then the profit should go 

to him. In fact, the entirety of the profit should go to him. If, for example, a worker types 

documents, and discovers an innovation that makes him type twice as fast, he should be 

rewarded for it. 

Hans: You are simply repeating your [1058] without taking my response [1079] into consideration. 

Next Message by Snowball is [1136].


[1141.1] Basil: Profits to the Workers. If capitalists make higher profit due to technical 

innovations, the workers should not only get part of this, they should get all of it. The reason 

is that technical innovation is inherently social—it only occurs through cooperation among 

workers. Because workers create all the value, they should reap all the profits. Unfortunately, 

because capitalists control the means of production, they are able to dictate cooperation and 

retain all extra profits that result from technical innovation. 

Hans [2011fa:713] has further explained that “Technical innovation is not really the work 

of any one individual. It is the result of a social process. Those workers who work the 

machines designed by the engineers create the practical experiences which nurture further 

improvements. A case can be made that the benefits of this social process should be shared 

by everyone, down to the person sweeping the floors. But due to their control of the means 

of production, the capitalists are able to syphon off the benefits of co-operation into their 

pockets.” This quote further qualifies the conclusion described above, that workers should 

receive all and any profits that result from technical innovation. 


[1197] Leont: Marx sees this to be an issue with the worker and what they believe they 

are selling. They are selling the labor-power not labor, but with this oversight they will 

continue to be exploited by the capitalist. Also with the amount of labor-power given for 

said commodity would decrease with technical innovation which highlights the difference 

between value produced and value of labor-power.


Hans: This answer still needs some work. The resubmission would have been a good opportunity for this. 


[1208] Rowlsroyce: If the workers did not innovate anything then no. After reading what 

Marx says in [700:1] paragraph 62. A machine was innovated that could make 240 yds. of 

fabric when the previous one could only make 160 yds. of fabric. Therefore the company 

sells 1d instead of 1 1/2d that it did previously. Leaving what earnings to about the same as 

they made before. This is true unless it makes more labor for the worker to run the machine 

or process the fabric as DO mentions in [2011fa:756] then the worker is entitled to more 

money. If not, maybe the capitalist would steal more business with his/her cheaper cost to 

build and then the factory would get more money/business and in a way pay the employee 

more money, but that is just hypothetical. 

At the same time the Capitalist has all of the risk involved and deserves the profit. 

Next Message by Rowlsroyce is [1209]. 

[1229] AndyUte: graded B The value of labor-power for which workers are hired is based 

on the value created by the laborer’s labor-power. The capitalist always expects the value 

created by labor-power to exceed that the actual labor-power. The capitalist owns the means 

of production and when the means of production becomes more efficient, through technical 

innovation for example, he is able to gain more profits. This does not change at the value 

labor-power. Therefore, the capitalist has no obligation to raise wages. Unless a specific


laborer played a role in this innovation he would in no way be paid more because the value 

of his labor-power has stayed the same. 

Hans: This was one point of view in the discussion, but others had different points of view. On what basis can it 

be argued that the worker has a claim on these profits? 


[1250] Neela: graded B If the capitalists make higher profits due to technical innovation, 

the workers should not get part of this, because they did not invent that technology that 

made the firm more productive. However, if the worker did help invent that technology then 

they should receive part of the profit, because it is due to their invention of the new process, 

software, etc. that improves the efficiency and productivity. They should only receive part of 

the profit, because although that technology is boosting the productivity of the firm, it will 

require less work on behalf of the worker, so they’re not working more or harder therefore 

they should only receive partial profit. 

Hans: Capitalist social relations are such that workers are not only deprived of the fruits of large portions of every 

day’s labor, but they are also excluded from reaping the full benefit of general social progress. Instead of seeing 

this as a deplorable fact, you raise it to a normative principle. You say that, even if a worker himself invented the 

technology, they should only get full benefit if on top of it they also have to work harder. As you see it, capitalists 

are allowed to reap full benefits from their inventiveness, workers are not. In a class reading Marx, I can count this 

as a fully correct answer only if you argue why your answer should be preferred over the answer to this question 

suggested by Marx’s theories. 

Next Message by Neela is [1251].


[1324] Bimmer: graded A There are two aspects of this question that must be looked at in 

order to answer it entirely. One must look at the capitalist’s view and the worker’s view. If 

we look at the capitalist’s view, he pays the worker for their labor-power. There is a constant 

wage that is given to the worker. However, if the worker does not go through any technical 

innovation, but the capitalist makes improvements to the machines that assist the workers, 

then the workers are in no way entitled to receive part of the higher profits achieved from 

this efficiency. The reason behind this, is that the worker is neither increasing their production 

or increasing their efficiency of production through any means of innovation. What is 

happening, is the capitalists is making the investment through upgrading his machines or 

robots in order for more product to be produced. Therefore, since the capitalist bears all the 

costs associated with the increased efficiency in order to increase profits, the worker does 

not deserve any of the higher profits achieved. 

Another way to look at this, is to see if the technical innovation is invested in the worker. 

Let’s say the capitalists is paying for additional training for the worker, in order to either 

learn a new set of skills or to find ways in which to decrease the times it takes to produce a 

commodity or increase efficiency. If we look at it like this, the technical innovation is still 

being made by the capitalist, since he is bearing he cost; yet, it is the worker who is learning 

and improving and receiving the investment in order to increase efficiency. Therefore, since 

the worker has acquired additional training and or new skills, the worker is able to sell his 

new labor-power and overall should be given some increase in wage. The big issue though,


is how much. Should the worker(s) receive all of the higher profits associated with the 

technical innovation? I do not think so. The capitalist is greedy and will therefore increase 

wages, but only to an amount where he/she is still making a higher profit than before. 

Overall, the worker or workers will receive only part of the higher profits achieved if 

they are the ones that went through a form of technical innovation. If not, than since the 

investment is made in machines which the capitalist owns and bears all costs associated with, 

the capitalist should keep all higher profit attained from the technical innovation investment 

he/she made. 


[1328] JEP: At first thought during the exam I viewed the technical innovation that increased 

profits an advancement solely created by the capitalist, neglecting the fact that labor 

does not become easier through all technical innovations. I was under the assumption that 

the person who created the technical advancement, in this example the capitalist, was responsible 

for the profits and assumed labor would remain the same, although production 

increased, because labor-time remained the same. I didn’t consider that labor may become 

more strenuous through technical innovations as capitalists continually demand higher production. 

After reading the annotations and notes I now believe that as profits increase for the 

capitalists through the labor-power of the worker that some of the profits should be shared 

with the worker. 

Next Message by JEP is [1485].


[1341] TMM: If the capitalist make a higher profit due to technical innovation, the worker 

should but ultimately does not get part of this profit and there are plausible reasons as to 

why. The laborer essentially is under the impression that they are paid for based on the 

product the make, when in all actuality the laborer is basically selling his labor-power to 

the capitalist. The capitalist bought the labor-power from the worker at a specific price, 

which was allowed by the worker himself. The laborer essentially does not have access 

to the means of production, as the capitalist does. Because the capitalist has the means of 

production he is able to exploit the worker as much as he possibly can in order to produce 

more and this is what might allow the capitalist to make technological advances and more 

efficient methods in the future. This is a difficult question to answer because this hits a moral 

parameter for humans, but ultimately (as stated by Kay in [2009fa:763]) the capitalist are in 

no way obligated to share higher profits from its employers. The capitalists simply take on 

much risk in the investment of the new technological advancements; the worker should get 

part of the increased profits from new technological advances if they in fact had something 

to do with the new technology, kind of like a royalty. However the capitalist is not obligated 

to do so, it would be in good heart for the capitalist to include the worker in more earning 

capabilities. If anything, the technological advancements might even neglect the need for 

a worker in the first place, so ultimately the caveat to new technology is that the creators 

might be destroying their own livelihood. Additionally, attaching the worker to the produce 

in the form of a “piece wage,” which is performance based pa,y the capitalists can allow the 

worker to earn wages based on the amount of “pieces” they produce. Profits of the capitalist


should certainly be shared with employees, as Kibosh [2007fa:467] said that this monetary 

raise should be a portion of the marginal increase due to the technology because the cost of 

the capital while simultaneously bringing attention to the added risk of using that specific 

technological good (not knowing the reliability and overall increase in output) until actual 

use. However, Marx says in 700:1: “The capitalist rightly rejects such claims as being gross 

errors as to the nature of wage-labor. He cries out against this presumptuous attempt to lay 

taxes on the progress of industry, and declares roundly that the productivity of labor does 

not concern the worker in the least.” Where the capitalist is not obligated to give the worker 

a more of the higher profits and Marx suggests not to. 

Hans: Your in-class answer had a good train of thought which you abandoned in your resubmission. 


[1355] Glister: If the capitalist makes a higher profit from technical innovation then the 

worker should receive a higher wage. The capitalist is taking advantage of the workers and 

using them in the first place. Technical innovation will make an extra surplus but the worker 

will still put the time into the product. It all comes down to whether the worker is getting 

paid for the commodities he has produced or whether he is being used for his labor power 

that he sold to the capitalist. If the workers have to change the way they work in order for 

the capitalist to make a higher profit then I feel the worker should receive a higher wage for 

his higher productivity. 

Hans: Your last sentence backtracks from your first sentence. The reason why all workers should get higher wages 

if there is technical progress is not that they have to change their work. It is also not, as you say in your in-class


answer, that the generation of this technical progress takes labor time. The reason, as I tried to explain in [1079], is 

that technical progress is a result of the production process, and the workers are engaged in the production process. 

The workers are the producers, not the capitalists. The capitalists are parasites on production. 


Compiled by Hans G. Ehrbar 2012-12-07 14:49:26.

ECONOMICS 5080 QUESTIONS AND ... - University of Utah

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?