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

ECONOMICS 5080 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 

ALL STUDY QUESTIONS 

ECONOMICS DEPARTMENT, UNIVERSITY OF UTAH FALL SEMESTER 2005 

Question 1 is 1 in 2007fa: 

Question 1 What did Marx mean with his formulation “the value form is slight in content”? 

[1876] Xerho: graded B+ Preface to the First Edition of “Capital”, Question 1. This 

question, while small and seemingly simple when read for the first time, is easy to answer, 

but like the question, carries with it much more meaning than the words alone convey. 

When Marx wrote that “the value form is slight in content” he was referring to the amount 

of material and information he covers in Das Kapital concerning the value form of money 

does not justly evaluate to the fullest extent what the value form truly represents. Marx 

admits that “the human mind has sought in vain for more than 2,000 years to get to the 

bottom of it...” and does not vainly think that he can solve this age-old question. He humbly 

informs the reader that even his best attempts to understand this are still “slight” to what 

really underlies the surface. 

I KNOW that I would not have been able to understand what Marx says here before taking 

this class. I would have thought that he was saying that he wouldn’t be diving deeply into 

the subject, without an appreciation of what he was really saying. 

Hans: No, Marx really meant that there is not that much to it. The content of the money form is abstract human 

labor, and the “genesis” of the money form is explained in section 3 of chapter One. People didn’t figure it out 

earlier because they didn’t know how to think about these issues. Marx was not as modest as you think; he thought 

that he had the solution which had escaped the many thinkers before him. 

Message [1876] referenced by [1709]. First Message by Xerho is [149]. 

[1947] Sparrow: I thought Marx was saying, the overall value-form is a simple concept. 

However, once it is broken down into many different parts it becomes much more complex. 

The last translation “Because the complete body is easier to study than its cells,” contends 

that there is not a lot to the overall value-form, but the individual make up of these forms are 

as the annotations state “richer in content and more complex.” 

Hans: Instead of saying it becomes complex when it is broken down, Marx was arguing that it is difficult to break 

down and analyze because it is so simple to begin with. One needs very subtle and abstract thinking to recognize 

its component parts. 

Message [1947] referenced by [2007fa:697]. First Message by Sparrow is [333]. 

Question 3 What is voluntarism? 

1 

2 2005fa Econ 5080 U of Utah 

[1919] SueGirl: graded A Voluntarism. Voluntarism is the belief that “everything in 

society can be reduced to individual attitudes (Hans [2003fa:3]).” Marx was against voluntarism, 

as he believed that it was more effective to examine the social structure of a society 

than the individuals themselves. 

Marx also adds that “one cannot blame today’s individuals for capitalism, because we are 

all products of our society (Ehrbar, xi).” 

Hans: We should not feel guilty about capitalism, but I think we have the responsibility to do something about it. 

First Message by SueGirl is [249]. 

Question 5 is 2 in 1996sp, 1 in 1997WI, 1 in 1997sp, 1 in 1997ut, 1 in 1998WI, 1 in 1999SP, 

1 in 2002fa, 2 in 2003fa, 4 in 2004fa, 8 in 2007fa, 8 in 2008SP, 8 in 2008fa, 8 in 2009fa, 

9 in 2010fa, 9 in 2011fa, and 1 in Answer: 

Question 5 Can one say that happiness is the only true wealth? 

[120] Claire: Marx states that material (As Submitted:) Marx states that ma- 

wealth enhances human life. Here I would terial wealth enhances human life. Here I 

would have to agree. When one has mate- 

have to agree. When one has materials, such rials, such as things to eat or a place to live 

as food and shelter, one’s life is enhanced or decent accomidtions, one enhances his or 

and one is happier. One feels more efficient 

and has more confidence, leisure time, and 

her life because they are more happy. They 

the ability to do what one wants to do. feel more efficient, have more confidence, 

leisure time and ability to do what he or she 

wants to do. 

Whether happiness is the only true wealth, 

I think is true. Even as a small child, one 

I think it is true that happiness is the hears that “money can’t buy you every- 

only true wealth. Even as a small child, I thing.” True, it can make life easier or a 

have heard that “money can’t buy you ev- little or more barable but it can’t keep a pererything.” 

True, it can make life easier or a 

little more bearable, but it can’t keep a person 

around forever. Wealth can’t buy love 

son around forever. Wealth can’t buy love or or even happiness. One chooses to be happy 

by making there self happy in work, fam- 

even happiness. One chooses to be happy by ily or acomplishments. Poor poeple can be 

finding happiness in work, family or in ac- happier than a rich fool with lots of material 

complishments. Poor people can be happier 

than a rich fool with lots of material items 

and a bad attitude. 

So yes, one can say that happiness is the 

only true wealth. Materials are not everything. 

items and a bad attitude. 

So I would have to aggree with the question, 

one can say that happiness is the only 

true wealth. Materials are not everything. 

Message [120] referenced by [122], [2008SP:5], and [2011fa:778]. Next Message by Claire is [688].

U of Utah Econ 5080 2005fa 3 

[122] Hans: How not to see connections. “Happiness is the only true wealth” resonates 

with things we all have heard since childhood. Claire [120] thinks therefore it must be true. 

My answer to this, as a Marxist, is: you are forgetting that we live in an exploitative society, 

and that our upbringing as children probably included socialization preparing us for our roles 

as exploited wage-workers in capitalism. 

If you are curious how I would answer question 5, please look at my [1999SP:12]. 

Next Message by Hans is [124]. 

[126] Tesa: graded A– The answer depends on how you define wealth. For example, if 

wealth is defined as “whatever makes you happy” then your monetary situation may have 

little bearing on your wealth. If you are happy, then you are wealthy, because that’s how 

you’ve defined wealth. Tennyson said that happiness depends on the mastery of one’s passions. 

For him, self-mastery is the thing that brings happiness. He might consider that to be 

wealth. 

But for others, wealth may be defined as “whatever is of worth”, which may be accumulation 

of knowledge, or some other “treasure” that may be independent of happiness. Monks 

in a monastery may avoid personal pleasures and comforts, and consider the austerity of 

their life to be their wealth. (They’re waiting for their treasure in heaven, maybe.) 

Marx says “an increase in the quantity of use-values constitutes an increase in material 

wealth.” I think it’s a stretch to describe use-values as “happiness.” 

As for being swamped with propaganda... it doesn’t seem to me that this is a case of 

brainwashing. But maybe I’m just brainwashed too well. I think happiness is a disposition; 

a choice. But that may just be a byproduct of being educated in a school system that was 

initiated and heavily funded by Carnegie, Rockefeller, and other capitalists. 

Hans: I changed the last word in your second sentence from “happiness” to “wealth” because I think it was a 

writing error. Let me know if I am mistaken; then I will change it back. 

Your honesty is very much appreciated. You seem to have read the arguments, but they have not convinced you. 

Thank you for telling us how you feel instead of saying the things you think I want to hear. 

Please read my (partial) response to your message in [127]. 

Message [126] referenced by [127]. Next Message by Tesa is [482]. 

[127] Hans: The real basis of wealth. Tesa gives two alternative definitions of wealth 

in [126]: either it is whatever makes a person happy, or it is something that is considered 

valuable. Both of these definitions are subjective, wealth is defined by the attitudes which 

people have towards the things that constitute wealth. A non-subjective definition of wealth 

would be for example: “knowledge and use-values which allow people to do things which 

they couldn’t do before.” Here wealth is not defined by what people think or feel about 

something, but by what they are enabled to do by this thing. 

Message [127] referenced by [126]. Next Message by Hans is [128]. 

[169] BBQ: It has been defined that “wealth” is anything that enhances human life. Marx 

clarifies this definition by saying “wealth” more specifically includes material wealth, i.e., 

the actual things in which enhance human life. To say that wealth in the context that Marx 

is providing allows an individual to feel the emotion of happiness is to say that a an emotion 

which is untangible is brought upon by a tangible object. 


To answer this question fully, the actual definition of wealth must in turn be provided. 

According to this particular definition, if you are happy then you are wealthy. I enjoyed 

reading the comments of Tesa when it was stated, “wealth” may be defined as “whatever is 

of worth”, which may be accumulation of knowledge, or some other “treasure” that may be 

independent of happiness. Monks in a monastery may avoid personal pleasures and comforts, 

and consider the austerity of their life to be their wealth. I appreciated this comment 

because it shows that happiness may be defined in numerous ways. To say that happiness 

can only be achieved through true wealth is simply a statement of one’s individual opinion. 

Hans: You ansered the question: “Can one say that happiness can only be achieved through true wealth?” This is 

not the question that was actually asked. 

Message [169] referenced by [174]. Next Message by BBQ is [514]. 

[174] MK: I find BBQ’s submission [169] to question number 5 interesting, and it certainly 

made me think. Yet I believe that it is too easy to get wrapped up in the “happines as wealth” 

question/claim as a philosophical type inquiry. I don’t believe that the present context asks 

us to evaluate the claim on a moral basis, or an epistemic basis– I may be incorrect, but I 

believe the question is best answered with the application of what we are presently studying. 

That said, I understand Marx as regarding wealth as ’anything tangible that enhances 

human life’– such as; clean air, clean water, monies, etc.. I don’t believe that Marx had 

intended that happiness in and of itself qualify as wealth. The claim that wealth “enhances” 

human life suggests that the wealth may lead to a mind-set or physical response that is 

enhanced– and that feeling of enhancement may in fact be the feeling of happiness. But 

happiness itself is not wealth. 

Afterall there is no way to quantify happiness– and any true measure of wealth must have 

some measure. (Shouldn’t it?) 

Hans: I said something similar, in quite different words, in [155]. 

Pisciphiliac: If wealth is an input and happiness is an output (as Hans stated in an earlier email), then you should 

be able to quantify happiness. Are you implying that you can quantify wealth? Can you quantify the inputs without 

being able to quantify the outputs? 

Next Message by MK is [176]. 

[250] TriPod: I would have to disagree. Happiness does enhance human life but it is not 

the only thing that does. In my life, my family would be the only true wealth. My family 

enhances my life and makes everything else fall into place. If I was a single man and didn’t 

have my wife and kids I would be very lonely person. I couldn’t be happy without my family. 

Wealth can be many things to different people, but in my life my family is my wealth. 

Hans: Marx would agree with you, I think, that a supportive network of social relations is an important part of a 

society’s wealth. Not all wealth can be reduced to material use-values. 

But he would not agree with your sentiment, expressed in the sentence “wealth can be many things to different 

people”, that wealth is in the eyes of the beholder. Real resources are necessary for good living. Good family 

relations are real resources just as good use-values are. 

Message [250] referenced by [496]. Next Message by TriPod is [296]. 

[251] Snowy: Can happiness be without wealth? Marx states, “wealth...as an imense 

heap of commodities”, specifically meaning that all elements of wealth are commodities. 

Later in the annotations wealth is defined as anything that enhances human life. Commodities, 

whether in the form of tangible goods, services, or privileges enhance human life, 

therefore, support the definition provided of wealth. To answer question 5: Can one say that 

happiness is the only true wealth. I would say no, happiness is not the only true form of


wealth. One might possess an extreme amount of wealth and be unhappy. On the other hand 

one might be reduced to poverty with few commodities and have happiness. Happiness is 

not a constant emotion. Happiness comes and goes. Victims of concentration camps during 

the Holocaust, experienced happiness at times. While those that have every commodity 

imaginable might experience happiness sporadically and it may not linger. 

On the other hand one may say that happiness comes when one experiences or gains a 

commodity and that it is the only true wealth, because it is ultimately the emotion, happiness 

that one feels, that enhances life. I would say that in most cases the emotion was bred and 

driven by commodities or influences of commodities. In agreement to BBQ’s message I 

believe that Marx is portraying that material wealth brings happiness. I agree to an extent. 

To conclude, happiness is not a constant emotion, yet is influenced by commodities which 

are defined, in this circumstance, as wealth. Both happiness and commodity influence each 

other in enhancing human life, therefore in this circumstance, they both are true forms of 

wealth. 

Hans: Only in capitalism is it true that all material wealth takes the form of commodities. Material wealth consists 

of use-values. Please look at my [136]. 

Next Message by Snowy is [566]. 

[394] Pisciphiliac: If wealth is an input and happiness is an output (as Hans stated in 

[1999SP:12]), then you should be able to quantify happiness. Are you implying that you can 

quantify wealth? Can you quantify the inputs without being able to quantify the outputs? 

Next Message by Pisciphiliac is [497]. 

Question 6 is 3 in 1995ut, 2 in 1996ut, 2 in 1997WI, 2 in 1997sp, 3 in 2003fa, 9 in 2008fa, 

10 in 2010fa, and 7 in 2012fa: 

Question 6 Wouldn’t scarcity be a better starting point for understanding how a given society 

is functioning than wealth? When there is scarcity, this means there is a need to act, 

whereas wealth consists of dead things. Scarcity leads us to discover what drives society, 

wealth does not. 

[159] PAE: I agree that scarcity should be the starting point for understanding how a given 

society works. I feel this way because scarcity measures how much of certain item a given 

society may have and how they allocate these items. It gives you a better understanding of 

how an equilibrium market price would be attained, since there is only a given amount of 

supply to handle demand. Also it lets a person get a better idea of how a bigger part of the 

population really works and interacts in the market. 

As far as wealth goes as Marx describes it, it only measures things that enhance human 

life. Really he is talking about material items, which enhance a person’s life. While this may 

be a good measure of individual wealth I do not believe it is capable of capturing how an 

entire society is doing because especially in this day and age not everyone enjoys the same 

level of wealth, whereas all people must adhere to certain levels of scarcity in any society. 

Hans: The things which a Marxist would find most remarkable about a capitalist economy is that everything is done 

through markets, and that the means of production are privately owned by someone other than the people working 

in these facilities. A mainstream economist does not say much about these conditions. Microeconomists talk 

about scarcity in a quasi technological fashion, while macroeconomists talk about unused resources and insufficient 


demand. A Marxist would say that these are the points of view of individual agents and policy makers who have to 

work within this system, but it gives little insight into the overall structure of the system itself. 

Next Message by PAE is [270]. 

Exam Question 7 is 3 in 1995WI, 6 in 1995ut, 6 in 1996sp, 4 in 1997sp, 3 in 1998WI, 3 

in 1999SP, 6 in 2004fa, 12 in 2007SP, 10 in 2007fa, 10 in 2008fa, 10 in 2009fa, 11 in 

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

Exam Question 7 What is a commodity? Marx does not give the definition of a commodity 

but an analysis. How would you define the thing he analyzes? (The answer can be given in 

one sentence.) 

[146] Avatar: (graded B+) The commodity is a basic vessel which other more complex 

elements in capitalism (money, capital etc.) can be reduced to; the commodity itself is the 

personification of the rawest element in capitalist production, human labor. 

Hans: Your original message had “(wealth, capital etc.)”; I took the liberty to change it into “(money, capital etc.)”, 

since commodity, money, and capital are different social forms of wealth. Economists are interested in the social 

forms of wealth; they do not study the content of wealth (use-values). 

Even with this correction, your answer is not a definition of the commodity, but a nutshell analytical statement 

about it. This is an exam question, i.e., it is an easy question with one right answer. In this case, the right answer is 

simply: a commodity is something produced for sale or exchange. 

Why do you call human labor a “raw” element in capitalist production? Perhaps it may seem “raw”, because 

the laborer is excluded from the control of the means of production, and the benefits of the labor do not flow back 

to the laborer himself or herself. But this should not cause us to look down on labor. Labor is not the rawest but the 

finest element in capitalist production. 

Next Message by Avatar is [148]. 

[236] Thelonius: Response to: “What the heck is a commodity”. On pg.70 of the 

annotations, Prof. Ehrbar gives a definition of “detotalization...not looking at things in the 

connection in which they must be looked at.” While a dictionary definion of “commodity” 

may state that a commodity is anything produced for sale or exchange, Marx is certainly 

setting the stage for some discussion of ethics in the market place, by discussing the totality 

of a commodities value i.e. use-value, exchange-value, labor-value, etc. There are obviously 

many contributions to the commodification of an object, which may be produced for sale 

or exchange and i think this is the emphasis Marx is actively working toward, though it is 

not a concise one. A commodity is connected first to it’s origin of natural resource, then to 

the labor neccesary to extract, refine or convert it to its greatest use-value, which directly 

increases it’s desirability as an exchange-value and may also posess a seccondary value in 

society if it contributes to wealth and well being(viagra). So I would summarize that a 

“commodity” is some-“thing”, which posesses all or one of these components. 

Next Message by Thelonius is [238]. 

[317] Aaron: What a commodity is? In response to earlier submissions I agree that 

the bodily form is in fact just the vessel, much like looking at presents at Christmas time all 

wrapped up. No one really cares about the wrapping paper they are care about what is inside. 

It is the value that is embodied within the commodity that is important and meaningful in 

production. 

Next Message by Aaron is [484].


[560] Bboarder: A commodity is “something produced for sale or exchange.” Marx also 

states that “a commodity is everything, whether raw material or finished good, whether a 

specialized brand name article or a staple, that is produced for sale.” 

Hans: Both are quotes from Hans’s interpretation of Marx, not from Marx himself. 

Message [560] referenced by [563] and [1425]. Next Message by Bboarder is [845]. 

[563] Hans: And oh, by the way, here is another answer to your question. Bboarder, 

in [560], brings two different quotes from the Annotations, without indicating how they are 

connected. I don’t like to have to choose between different answers. Bboarder should have 

written: 

A commodity is something produced for sale or exchange. It does not matter 

whether it is a raw material or finished good, whether a specialized brand 

name article or a staple, what matters is that it is produced for sale. 

By the way, Iblindone, answering a different question, also gave two unrelated answers 

in [538]. 


[566] Snowy: commodity. A commodity is everything that has use-value and is produced 

for sale. Once an object is exchanged or sold and has use-value to its user it is a commodity. 

Message [566] referenced by [582], [626], and [2009fa:383]. Next Message by Snowy is [938]. 

[572] Mason: I fully agree with the other entries on this question but I believe that one 

other aspect of a commodity is wealth. Marx tells us, “that all elements of wealth are commodities.” 

And wealth is anything that enhances human life. And the definition of a commodity 

is something produced for sale or exchange, and by doing this you are trying to 

increase your wealth. 

Hans: Wealth should not go into the definition of a commodity. Even if a commodity is not produced in order to 

increase the producer’s wealth, it is still a commodity. (Perhaps the producer plans to donate the prodeeds to the 

needy, or production has the purpose to keep the producer himself or herself from starving.) 

Next Message by Mason is [915]. 

[582] Hans: It is a thing, it is a social relation. The definition “a commodity is something 

produced for sale or exchange” is difficult to swallow. How can the purpose for which 

something was produced be part of the definition of this thing? What does that have to do 

with the thing itself? 

Presumably that is why Snowy, in [566], added the sentence: 

Once an object is exchanged or sold and has use-value to its user it is a 

commodity. 

This pulls the definition into the more familiar territory of a clearly verifiable condition 

associated with the thing itself. Unfortunately this additional sentence is wrong. A commodity 

does not become commodity through the exchange, it is a commodity ever since its 

production. 

The awkwardness of the definition comes from the fact that the thing which we call 

“commodity” is only the tip of the iceberg. The iceberg itself is a specific social relation of 

production, in which products are produced privately and have to pass through the market 

before they can be used. This relation does not take the form of a direct interaction between 


the producers but the form of a society-induced property of the products: the products can 

be sold, and even must be sold if their producers want to be rewarded for producing them. 

In other words, the intention under which a commodity is produced enters the definition 

of the commodity because the commodity is more than a thing, it is a social relation. 

Message [582] referenced by [626], [2007SP:285], [2007fa:26], [2008fa:438], [2009fa:383], [2010fa:307], and 

[2011fa:143]. Next Message by Hans is [584]. 

[588] Bosox: The definition of commodity in the book states: A commodity is something 

produced for sale or exchange. Marx states that value is that property of a commodity which 

allows it and requires it to be exchanged on the market. 

Is this ok for the test or should I change it a wee bit? 

Hans: The sentence about value is not from Marx himself but from my Annotations. It is not necessary for the 

definition of a commodity. Apparently you selected it because it clarifies that a commodity which fails to be 

exchanged is a waste for its producer. Commodities must be exchanged. You might want to add to the stock answer 

“a commodity is something produced for sale or exchange” that it must be exchanged in order to be beneficial to 

its producer. 

Message [588] referenced by [626]. Next Message by Bosox is [808]. 

[589] Mjk: A commodity is anything produced for sale or exchange. In other word, 

commodity is used for products which are available from many suppliers, and which are 

standardized so that there is no reason apart from price, for buyers to prefer one supplier over 

another. In Marx view, commodity is everything, whether raw material or finished goods, 

whether a specialized brand name article or a staple, that is produced for sale. Commodity 

would be the final products which are ready to be sold or exchanged in the market between 

the buyers and sellers. 

Hans: Your answer is very close to the text in the Annotations, but the few changes you made show that you did 

not understand the text. 

Next Message by Mjk is [618]. 

[591] Camhol: In [2004fa:15], Hans replied to the writer Toby that “Marx’s definition of 

‘commodity’ is very broad. He does not care whether the thing is a finished consumer good 

or a raw material or an investment good, if they are produced for sale they fall under his 

definition of ‘commodity’. Marx uses such a broad definition because a capitalist firm does 

not care either whether they produce one or the other, as long as can make money from it.” 

I believe that is exactly what defines a commodity. It is an item, be it anything, that has 

a perceived exchange value that leads to somebody placing that item up for either sale or 

exchange. This can be anything. I can trap air in a bottle and if I create enough perceived 

value in that air, I could exchange it to somebody else. Once that exchange value is placed, 

that air has become a commodity. So in short, anything that is produced for sale or exchange 

is labeled a commodity. 

Hans: Some overpriced frills have become legends (pet rock, hoola hoop, cabbage patch dolls) but for an explanation 

of the commodity they are irrelevant. 

Next Message by Camhol is [761]. 

[592] Synergy: graded B A commodity is anything that is produced for the purpose of 

being sold. Whether the good is raw materials or finished goods, if the capitalist firm can 

make money off of it then it is considered a commodity. [2004fa:15] It could also be looked 

at as the perceived exchange value. If the perception is that there will be value in a good, 

then it is considered a commodity.


Hans: Whether a capitalist firm can make money off it or not is not part of the definition of a commodity. 

Next Message by Synergy is [760]. 

[603] Ernesto: A commodity is all encompassing. A commodity is more than goods 

produced. Information and services are commodities consumed every day. It can be anything 

utilized by an individual regardless of the use. It doesn’t even have to benefit the individual. 

Heroin is a substance that would meet the criterion of a commodity that proves to have 

irreversible negative effects on that individual. We are ourselves commodities that can be 

bought, sold, and traded. 

Hans: You are missing the main part of the definition: something produced for sale or exchange. 

Next Message by Ernesto is [685]. 

[626] Michael: Clarification on some remarks to question 7. Everybody, 

This message is an attempt to clear up some lingering confusion over the definition and 

significance of the commodity. 

In [582] Hans indicates that the following sentence, quoted from snowy [566], is incorrect: 

Once an object is exchanged or sold and has use-value to its user it is a 

commodity. 

While in response to Bosox [588] Hans says that the simple characterization of the commodity 

is correct: 

A commodity is something produced for sale or exchange. 

But these two sentences are not saying the same thing. Snowy’s sentence says that an 

object becomes a commodity once it is exchanged and has been shown to have use-value 

to its receiver. The problem with this formulation is that an object cannot become a commodity; 

it either already is a commodity or it cannot ever be. The second sentence says that 

a commodity is something that is produced only because it can be exchanged. The point 

is that Marx wants to specifically analyse those things that are only produced for their exchange 

value. The reason those things get such attention from Marx are for the wonderful 

properties they possess (as we’ve seen in sections 3 and especially 4) in an economy largely 

based on exchange. 

Next Message by Michael is [627]. 

[701] MK: A commodity is something produced for sale or exchange. 


Question 19 is 18 in 2004fa, 23 in 2008fa, and 21 in 2012fa: 

Question 19 What does the study of commodities have to do with the classes in capitalist 

society (capitalist class and working class)? 

[131] Jimmie: graded A– Commodities and Classes. Marx states that commodities provide 

the wealth of a capitalist society. However, it is not the allocation and/or the distribution 

of commodities that creates classes, it is the production. Therefore, classes of a capitalistic 

society are defined by who owns and controls the means of commodity production. This 

is why the study of commodities is important in relation to classes. Capitalism is different 


from other modes of production because the working class can only provide labor power and 

has no control over the other forces of production. In contrast, in other modes of production, 

such as feudalism, there was at least some control and ownership of the means of production 

by the lower classes. 

Message [131] referenced by [136] and [144]. Next Message by Jimmie is [521]. 

[136] Hans: Commodity form of wealth. The first sentence of chapter One is: 

The wealth of those societies, in which the capitalist mode of production 

reigns, presents itself as an “immense heap of commodities.” 

In his answer [131], Jimmie summarizes this sentence as follows: “Marx states that commodities 

provide the wealth of a capitalist society.” Earlier, in [45], Bob had said something 

similar: “Marx [states] the wealth of a capitalist society is the commodities within it.” Both 

are incorrect paraphrases of Marx. Material wealth, in capitalism as elsewhere, consists in 

use-values. In capitalism, these use-values take the form of commodities. The commodity 

form does not add to society’s wealth; a Marxist would even say the commodity form is a 

hindrance which prevents certain kinds of wealth from being provided. 


[144] Rudy: graded A The relationship between commodities and classes in capitalist 

society can also indirectly define the constituents of each class. In the annotations we learn 

of Marx’s analogy of the commodity to capitalist economy as a single undifferentiated cell to 

the human body. The basic element of the commodity will define the classes in capitalism. In 

capitalist society the capitalist class controls the production of commodities, just as Jimmie 

points out in [131]. Here, the producer, or capitalist class uses the worker-class. The worker 

class needs commodities and accepts a wage from the producer in order to obtain them. 

Collettchen in [2004fa:654] speculates, “The worker hates the capitalist but needs him.” 

This statement summarizes the way that the capitalist has the worker right where he wants 

him. The worker produces the commodity that he needs himself. This production is done 

for much less than the commodity is worth, which consequently adds to the control of the 

capitalist (producer) class over the worker class. The word describing this relationship in 

current and past discussions is “exploitation”. Thus, the relationship of the class to the 

commodity is important for it is the factor that defines each class. 

Hans: The workers should be called producers, not the capitalists. 

Next Message by Rudy is [295]. 

[221] Zone: graded A The study of commodities in a capitalist society is directly related 

to the separation of the working class from the capitalist class. These commodities are 

produced not to be used by the individual who produces them but they are produced to be 

exchanged and to make a profit. Marx states that the value of a commodity is the labor that 

is used to create it. Therefore it should seem that the workers who create this value should 

receive the value in return for their work. This is obviously not the case. The capitalists 

who create the production environment for the worker take this value away from the worker 

and give the worker a wage value in relation to their input to the commodity. The difference 

of wages in the sphere of production creates the inequality and ultimately the separation 

between the classes. The capitalists wish to increase profits as much as possible, while 

maintaining their production levels by keeping the workers at a low subsistence wage. When 

the excess value of this production is given solely to the capitalist it creates immense wealth,


while the worker whose labor is embodied in the commodity is given little for the work. 

When examining the separation between classes it is important to look at the commodity 

and especially the production of the commodity to see where this conflict starts. 

Next Message by Zone is [469]. 

[231] Thelonius: Capital is defined as; accumulated wealth esp. as used to produce 

more wealth. According to this short definition, Capitalism may simply be regarded as 

having money in order to make money. The Capitalist class is the strata of citizens who 

have themselves acculmulated, or have recieved accumulated Capital, for the purpose of 

generating profit. It is not having money alone that makes a capitalist wealthy, it is the 

conversion of that money into a marketable commodity form, which can be used for gainful 

exchange. Thus, money is converted into real estate, a percentage of shares of a corporation, 

business ventures and so forth. According to Marx, Capitalism is profitable only by some 

degree of exploitation. 

All of these conversions are fundamentally based upon the exploitation of a natural resource 

at some level, but in order for the commodity form to generate profit in a market 

setting, the Capitalist requires a labor force in order to facilitate the production and the exchange 

of commodities. This labor force is known as the working class, or those who are 

paid wages by an employer. The Capitalist class is the commodity holder who pays wages 

only to facilitate the exchange of commodities for profit. 

Hans: You are forgetting one important ingredient of Marx’s theory: the value of the commodities only comes 

from labor. 


Question 20 is 13 in 1995WI, 120 in 1996sp, 14 in 1997ut, 18 in 2003fa, 24 in 2008fa, 

and 23 in 2012fa: 

Question 20 Would it have been possible to start the book Capital with a more commonsense 

definition of capitalism, such as, capitalist production is production for profit? 

[148] Avatar: graded A It would be ineffective for Marx to begin Capital with the definition 

of capitalism, “production for profit” for two reasons: one is for the sake of the logical 

development of Marx’s argument about capitalism, and the other is because of the problem 

with that particular definition of the term “capitalism.” 

Concerning the continuity of the logical progression, that Marx is pursuing in his case 

for understanding capitalism, Marx begins his assessment of capitalism by analyzing the 

commodity. Starting with the commodity Marx is creating the logical framework from which 

he argues the element that differentiates capitalism from other economic systems. From 

his analysis of the commodity we get an understanding of value and where it comes from 

(labor) which ultimately leads to the profit disparity between the laborer and the capitalist. 

The proletariat puts labor into the production of a commodity that is rendered valuable by 

this process, and is in turn paid a subsistence wage. That arrangement allows the capitalist 

to yolk the surplus labor of the proletariat. This surplus labor translates to profit for the 

capitalists without the burden of the commodity’s actual production labor. This problem in 

distribution of profit is what separates the capitalist mode and is therefore what makes the 

definition “production for profit” flawed. Simply to say “production for profit” is not enough 

to define capitalist society because it ignores the way that the “profit” part of this definition 


fits into the capitalist social structure. The relationship between the direct producer of a 

commodity and his/her immediate superior must be addressed with the notion of production 

for profit to get to the heart of capitalism. 

As stated above, only an understanding of the commodity and thereby an understanding 

of value within commodities allows a reader to fully understand the relationship between 

capitalist and proletariat in regard to labor, value and profit. That is why Marx was right to 

begin his book with a discussion of commodity, not a straightforward definition of capitalism. 

Hans: You have a good style, but you are not addressing things directly enough. For someone who does not already 

know what you mean it may be difficult to follow you. 

Here is my own attempt to say things more “directly”: “production for profit” is an insufficient characterization 

of capitalism because it is silent about the source of the profits. In Marx’s theory, profits are the unpaid labor of the 

wage workers. 

Message [148] referenced by [2012fa:602]. Next Message by Avatar is [664]. 

Question 22 is 15 in 1995WI, 20 in 1995ut, 18 in 2001fa, 21 in 2004fa, 26 in 2008fa, 28 

in 2011fa, and 25 in 2012fa: 

Question 22 If Marx wanted to start his book with first principles, why did he pick the 

analysis of the commodity and not the analysis of the production process or the analysis of 

value? 

[45] Bob: Marx answers this question best by stating the wealth of a capitalist society is 

the commodities within it. The realization that commodities equal wealth is enough reason 

to let Marx start at this point. This is justification enough for me to understand why he chose 

commodities as his starting point. 

Marx could have easily used the production as a starting point, however the is some 

problem with using production because the factors that go into production are very intense. 

You have the area of the world in which the production occurs. This can change the price 

of the production with the cost of land, labor and capital. Of course these factors tie into a 

commodity, but the value of the commodity is usually limited to the supply and demand for 

a certain area. 

I also feel that by starting at commodities Marx in a way begins with use-value because 

it is the possible uses of the commodity. It would be hard to start with possible uses of a 

commodity without first introducing what a commodity is and why we need to understand 

them. The use-value adds to the wealth of a capitalist society. The more uses make it 

more marketable. The best example I can think of would be the comparison of an English 

Professor and a Business Professor. Of course they are both of value, but the use value for 

the Business Professor is much greater because they would have more options in the work 

force. This drives the dollar or salary value for them up. 

In reality economics follows a path that ultimately goes in a circle. Eventually starting 

with the explanation of a commodity will at one point result in referring to the production of 

the commodity and the use value pertaining to the commodity. 

Hans: Michael gave you the right response in [55]. The content of material wealth is use-values. This is true in 

every society. The form which this wealth takes in capitalism is commodities, i.e., things that can be purchased and 

sold.


Message [45] referenced by [55] and [136]. Next Message by Bob is [84]. 

[55] Michael: A Few Comments on Bob’s Submission. Make sure to be careful in 

chapter one. To assist you, let me make a few notes on Bob’s answer [45] to Question 22. 

First, Bob states that “The realization that commodities equals wealth...” Marx, in fact, does 

not claim that wealth consists only in commodities. Since a commodity is something that is 

produced for exchange, it follows that the wealth of a capitalist society consists in more than 

the commodities it produces (since some things we consume are not produced by human 

labor, but are use values nevertheless. Air, for example). What Marx is saying, instead, is 

that the commodity is the predominant form of wealth in a capitalist society. So wealth does 

not have to take the form of a commodity, but all wealth must consist in use-values. (Bob 

makes this point somewhat in his third paragraph). For example, a society wherein everyone 

produced only for their personal consumption would be a society with a certain wealth but 

which produced no commodities. 

Secondly, Marx uses the term “value” in a special sense. I think that consistently interpreting 

“value” in the correct sense is one of the more difficult aspects of reading chapter 

one. When Marx defines what he means by value (quantity of undifferentiated human labor 

embedded in the commodity (remember, when we’re talking about value, we’re always talking 

about a commodity-value is only defined for things produced for exchange)) it seems 

easy enough, but you must remember to substitute that meaning in for every instance of 

“value”. A more particular point is that “value” is not the same as price, and is also independent 

of supply-demand factors. (The amount of socially necessary labor required to produce 

some object does not generally depend on supply-demand.) 

Lastly, let me restate that Marx has to be read carefully, especially chapter one of Capital. 

If you feel a bit lost, that’s not only OK, it’s how everyone feels on the first read. Much 

more concerning would be if you did not feel confused. So read and then re-read, perhaps 

taking notes along the way whenever Marx makes special use of a word or introduces a new 

concept (drawing pictures may be a useful aid). Also, feel free to send me a personal e-mail. 

If I feel that the question and answer would be useful to the rest of the class I will post them 

to the free discussion list but I will not in any way identify who asked the question. 

Message [55] referenced by [45]. Next Message by Michael is [89]. 

Question 23 is 21 in 1996ut, 19 in 2000fa, 27 in 2007fa, 27 in 2008fa, and 27 in 2009fa: 

Question 23 How does Marx’s starting point differ from usual approaches to economics? 

[132] Cdew: Marx’s starting point. Marx begins his presentation of economics by calling 

it “political economy” as well as by introducing the idea of wealth and the commodity. 

Wealth is referring to anything that enhances human life. This can be anything from private 

wealth to public parks and beaches. While Marx uses wealth to begin his examination of 

economics, most modern approaches begin with the idea of scarcity. This is often examined 

through the allocation of scarce resources or that there are unlimited wants and needs and 

limited resources that must choose which goods and services to produce. Marx on the other 

hand begins with people already having those things that enhance life. This is not to say that 

Marx was more of an optimist than most of today’s economists, but rather that he believed 

using the commodity to explain wealth was the most simple entrance into understanding 


political economy. Wealth comes in the form of commodities, and in order to work up into 

money and capital Marx believed it was simpler to begin at the point of wealth. I think it is 

easy to begin with scarcity today since so many people relate more to what they want than 

what they already have. This also allows for a belief that there are things we can change in 

order to get what we want. When Marx begins with wealth, it makes it seem that we are in 

a stopping place; that what we have is all we are going to get. 

Hans: Marx’s topic was not wealth itself, but the social form of wealth. 

Message [132] referenced by [141]. Next Message by Cdew is [345]. 

[133] Bob: Marx begins with the in depth analysis of the commodity. He evaluates it with 

such ideas as value, use-value, and exchange-value. This seems to be the starting point for 

his discussion of capitalism. On the other hand, the usual economic approach is to discuss 

the scarcity goods that we each try to get in order to meet our unlimited wants. The supply 

and demand is often the first things we each would remember from our first economics 

class. Marx, however, has a different approach, which seems to go a little bit deeper and 

more specific. The commodity is something produced for sale or exchange. By starting 

with commodities Marx is able to take a more in depth look than the general economics 

approach. The commodity is what we use to try and satisfy our unlimited wants. This want 

in turn gives the commodity use-value and exchange-value. 

Message [133] referenced by [141]. Next Message by Bob is [297]. 

[141] Hans: Marx’s starting point. Cdew writes in [132] that Marx, unlike today’s 

economists, “begins with people already having those things that enhance life.” This is a 

good observation. The economy does not begin when you or I get our paychecks, it is an 

ongoing concern. Furthermore, the scarcity which we all feel is artificial. It exists only so 

that businesses can hire help at minimum wages. Overall our economy is incredibly rich. 

The concern of a Marxist economist are the social structures which allow for a high and 

rising rate of poverty in the richest country of the earth, which is blessed with so many 

natural resources. The problem is not scarcity but the misallocation of wealth. 

Bob writes in [133]: 

The commodity is what we use to try and satisfy our unlimited wants. This 

want in turn gives the commodity use-value and exchange-value. 

Marx strongly denies that exchange-value derives from wants. The interesting question 

is exactly: if the exchange-value does not come from our wants, where does it come from? 

This question gives an in-depth entry point into the web of economic relations in which we 

all are embedded. 


Multiple Choice Question 24 is 20 in 1999SP: 

Multiple Choice Question 24 Marx does not begin Capital with individual actions and 

preferences because 

(a) in a socialist system, the common good is more important than individual preferences 

(b) his goal is to understand the social relations the individuals find themselves in, and they 

cannot be derived from individual preferences 

(c) What individuals do is determined by their class background


(d) Marx does not believe that there is something like human nature. 

[725] MK: B 


Question 27 is 18 in 1995WI, 23 in 1996ut, 20 in 1998WI, and 30 in 2008fa: 

Question 27 Using modern experience, describe some implications, good or bad, of the indifference 

of market relations towards the nature of the needs which the commodity satisfies. 

[217] Demosthenes: graded A Indifference Towards Nature of Needs. This indifference 

leads to the growing inequity that we observe in our capitalist society. I recall a conversation 

between two men, one of whom was a potato farmer. The farmer could scarcely understand 

why he wasn’t a wealthy man. He said, “I am producing something that everyone in the 

world can use. I mean, everyone’s gotta eat, right?” 

The needs for food, water, shelter, air, are the most basic and fundamental that we as 

humans would most like to have met from day to day. Why then, would someone who 

produces commodities that satisfy these needs, such as this farmer, not be able to exchange 

his commodity for something else of “great value”? This is because market relations, which 

determine the exchange value of the commodity, are not affected by the needs satisfied by 

the commodity. This is why one ticket to a Lakers basketball game can be exchanged for a 

room full of potatoes. The indifferent market forces of supply and demand bestow a higher 

exchange value on the basketball ticket, which provides entertainment, than the sack of 

potatoes, which can sustain life. Thus, the basketball star lives a life of luxury, comfort, and 

excess, while the potato farmer struggles to provide the basic needs for his family. 

Next Message by Demosthenes is [224]. 

Question 31 is 27 in 1995ut, 29 in 2003fa, 35 in 2007SP, 34 in 2008SP, and 34 in 2008fa: 

Question 31 Can you think of an example in which the quantity of something affects its 

quality, for instance some physical matter two litres of which are qualitatively different from 

one litre of it? 

[39] Ace: graded A– I think one of the best examples of this principle is when you are 

dealing with water and steam. Hegel uses the very definition of qualities that express my 

ideas when he says, “Qualities are those properties which define the thing” (Heg69, p.185). 

Some of the properties of water at room temperature compared to steam at 100 degrees 

Celsius are as follows. 

Water is not able to be condensed to a smaller more confined area, whereas steam will 

allow pressure to be placed upon it and can be condensed. The volume of water and steam 

changes, one cubic foot of steam condenses to 1/8 of a cup of water. This is done by the 

molecular movement that changes when water is vaporized to steam. Water is denser than 

steam because the molecules are freer to roam when in a liquid or a solid. So when the 

quantity of heat changes so do the qualities of water. 

Message [39] referenced by [43]. Next Message by Ace is [242]. 

[43] Michael: An answer to this question would be an example of a physical entity whose 

quality (as in: characteristics) depends on its quantity. If I understand Ace [39] correctly, 


Ace’s proposal cannot be an example of this because he (say) argues that water changes 

qualitatively as different amounts of heat are applied to it. In this case, it is not in different 

amounts of water that we find different qualities but rather it is the amount of heat that is 

changing. Do you sense the problem? 

Consider what Marx says in the first paragraph, section 2, part a: “It is apt to be forgotten 

that the magnitudes of different things can be compared quantitatively, only when those 

magnitudes are expressed in the same unit. It is only as expressions of such a unit that 

they are of the same denomination, and therefore commensurable.” So the problem is this: 

Suppose that in different amounts of water, water is qualitatively different. Then ask: are we 

in that case even comparing two different quantities of the same thing (water)? 

Another issue is whether in this example it is even the quantity of water that is changing 

(regardless of why). It seems that rather than the quantity of water changing, it is the volume 

of the space that contains it. After all, the number of H2O molecules has not changed, they 

are only more densely located in the case of solid water (compared to steam). I hope this is 

found useful. 


[46] Hans: The example I was thinking about is enriched Uranium, which is a radioactive 

yet stable metal in small quantities, but explodes when it is present in larger quantities. 

Such critical mass considerations can probably also help explain the character of popular 

movements and uprisings, which are notoriously difficult to predict. Some people are always 

dissatisfied, but if the percentage of dissatisfied people gets beyond a critical point, then they 

reinforce each other and this can lead to powerful mass movements. 

Marx predicted capitalism to approach such critical mass because a larger and larger 

fraction of the population is hurled into the working class. He said somewhere that the only 

weapon of the working class is their numbers. 


Question 35 is 37 in 2008fa and 39 in 2012fa: 

Question 35 What is the meaning of “natural” in the term “natural worth”? 

[65] Gza: (graded A) Natural worth. I was wondering if anyone can help me understand 

Marx’s definition or understanding of “natural”. I know that there is some connotation to 

Locke’s definition but does Marx draw a distinction between “natural worth” which he says 

is to supply the necessities of life and what is “natural”? In other words is the “natural” in 

the term “natural worth” different from the definition of “natural” attached to some worth 

other than the “worth” in “natural worth”? I just find the term “natural” troubling because 

historically the idea of nature and what is natural has changed so much and even within a 

context the term seems abstract and elusive, let alone attaching it to “worth”. In other words, 

1. does “natural” have a distinct meaning for Marx in his term “natural worth” 

2. if it does how does Marx define “natural” 

3. if “natural worth” cannot be dissected into two words that will maintain his idea, isn’t 

“natural worth” a social phenomenon that does not preexist society?


Message [65] referenced by [97] and [2012fa:40]. Next Message by Gza is [85]. 

[97] Hans: Unnatural worth. Originally Gza sent his [65] to the free discussion list, but 

I thought this was a question worth discussing on our homework list, therefore I made it a 

homework question. 

The term “natural worth” does not come from Marx himself. Marx quotes Locke here. 

Marx would use the word “use-value” instead. Gza was wondering whether the word “natural” 

in “natural worth” is appropriate, since use-values are certainly not something that 

pre-exists society. 

One can argue that use-value is something natural, since most use-values are a relationship 

between the physical characteristics of certain object and humans as natural beings, for 

instance food satisfies the natural need of humans to eat. On the other hand, the culinary 

skills in the preparation of food, and the appreciation of food, has a strong social component 

in it too. In other use-values (the use-value of a Harry Potter book), the social component 

is much more dominant. But if one compares it with exchange-value, use-values are much 

more natural. 

This last paragraph was a defense of Locke’s use of the word “natural”; Marx himself 

does not call use-values “natural,” but he says that they are much less tied up with social 

relations than exchange-value. 

Message [97] referenced by [2012fa:40]. Next Message by Hans is [106]. 


Question 38 Do things have use-value because people use them, or do people use things 

because they have use-value? 

[41] Gza: graded A Although Marx seems very clear that use-value depends on its reference 

to human needs and that the usefulness of a thing makes it a use-value as noted on page 

16 of the course packet. Marx also points out that the use-value of a thing in question is 

related to its usefulness which assumes that someone is or will use it. However, the question 

is framed in a way to question if Marx would suggest that the act of using a thing creates 

use-value in and of itself. Although Marx does argue that someone has to be in physical 

possession of a thing in order to have the thing manifest its use-value, Marx illustrates that 

the action of using a thing assumes it already had a use. Marx’s analysis of a person needing 

the physical thing to take advantage of its use-value presupposes that the thing in question 

already has use-value but it is not made visible until someone utilizes the thing, meaning it 

is realized/actualized. Therefore, things not only have use-value because people use them 

but the mere existence of a commodity assumes a certain use-value inherent within the thing 

in question. This is supported in Marx’s use of the word “actualizes” or “realized” where he 

says that “use-value actualizes (realized) itself only by use or consumption” (126:1). His use 

of the word “actualize” (realized) clearly illustrates that the action of using a thing makes 

manifest the use-value inherent within the thing. 

Noted on page 17 of the course packet is the observation that “things must have certain 

properties which are useful for humans before people can use them,” which suggests that usevalue 

is always presupposed in the physical being of a thing. Marx never suggests that things 


exclusively have “use” when they are used, or that using a thing creates its use-value as a 

constructionalist would argue. Rather, Marx is suggesting that if a person uses something the 

person assumes that the “something” in question has a usefulness and therefore a use-value. 

Furthermore, Marx says that a commodity’s physical presence makes manifests its usevalue 

and the “characteristic of a commodity does not depend on whether appropriating 

its useful properties”. Marx here seems to link an ontological essence to commodities and 

argues that a thing’s being assumes a use-value, rather than existence preceding the thing’s 

essence. 

Hans: You have to be careful to explain yourself better, and not use words which many class participants are not 

likely to know. You write: 

Marx is suggesting that if a person uses something the person assumes that the ‘something’ in 

question has a usefulness and therefore a use-value. 

Not only does the user assume this, but it can be argued that such an inference is most likely to be true. If it is not, 

i.e., if the thing is not useful for the user, the user will notice sooner or later. 

Message [41] referenced by [53]. Next Message by Gza is [56]. 

[53] Thugtorious: (graded A) Response to and Question about Gza’s answer. I agree 

with most of what the Genius, Gza, says in [41]. However, this perplexing question has me 

a little stumped. It sort of reminds me of the Platonian idea of “virtue.” The virtue of a tool, 

object, or commodity (in this case), is within its intended use. For example, if a hammer 

is used to hammer in a nail, the hammer is virtuous. However, if it is used as a means for 

murder, it is not virtuous. Therefore, the use of an idea, tool, object, etc. is presuppossed 

before use, and not defined by its use. I might have Plato’s argument a little skewed here, 

but the point should still hold. 

Now, moving onto the Marxian idea of “use-value.” He sites within the first chapter that 

two people meet in a marketplace to exchange commodities. Seller A has a commodity 

that is of no use-value to himself, and seller B has a commodity that is of no use-value to 

herself. Luckily, they find the other person’s commodity to have use-value for their purpose, 

which makes the exchange beneficial for all parties involved. So, the idea of a “use-value” 

reminds me, in a way, of the Platonian idea of “virtue,” except in a much more relative sense. 

Instead of the commodity having an intrinsic use-value, the value arises within the possesor’s 

intended use of said commodity; almost the inverse of the Platonian idea of virtue. 

Here comes my question: Say said commodity no longer had a use-value for anybody 

in the market. It became completely obsolete. Does that item still contain some abstract 

concept of use-value, or was its use-value truely defined by the user? Or, does it fall out of 

the realm of commodities and become just an object with no use-value? Further, what is to 

be said about an item that, through study and technological advance, has a new use-value is 

uncovered (for example, diamonds and lasers)? Can we honestly say that the item always 

possessed that use-value, and it was because of this that we discovered it? Or, was it humans 

insatiable drive for discovery and repeated use of said object that bestowed upon it a new 

use-value? 

This is not as much a critique of the Gza’s answer, but more of a question. 

Hans: Personal remarks, like calling other class participants a “genius,” are not appropriate in this kind of discussion. 

Next Message by Thugtorious is [76].


[56] Gza: (content A– form 90%) use-value debate. i think everyone has good arguments 

about the whole debate of whether use is constructed in the utilization of an object 

or if use-value exists independent of actual use. however, i think that Marx isn’t necessarily 

drawing a dichotomy between the constructionalist camp and the ontological advocates. 

instead he starts his argument by suggesting that use-value can only be realized when a physical 

commodity is in hand and is thus utilized, a type of constructionalism that suggests that 

use-value is in a way made through use. However, is argument then progresses by arguing 

that whenever someone uses something, the action of use presupposes a value that would 

logically have to preexist the initial use, or else why would the person pick up the object and 

try to use it. in a way Marx seems to offer a type of permutation between the binary schools 

of thought. it seems that we would all have to agree that things exist on some level, the 

question comes down to whether essence precedes existence or existence preceding essence. 

based on our linguistic frame of understanding, which is somewhat limited, logically i have 

to assume that essence/things and therefore use-value precedes or comes before the ability 

to use. 

i could be wrong and am sure that many would great arguments against that theory, i’m 

not sure if i fully believe it myself, but it seems to at lest logically answer the debate, even if 

it is on some level a permutation. 

Hans: I realize that this was supposed to be an informal comment, but even in such informal comments you should 

work on making your writing clearer, so that it can be understood also by those who are not familiar with the 

philosophical terms you are using. 


[59] Pete: graded B weight 50% The use-value is both in the object and in the user. A 

hammer, for instance, has no use as a hammer to a man with no hands. As a door stop, for 

this man, the hammer has value. 

Use-value is determined by the user. The saying, “One man’s garbage is another’s treasure.” 

Society can set a value on an object for the usual use but an individual does not have to 

use the object for its usual use, therefore, the value is determined by the party that has the 

object and the party that wants the object. 

Hans: Sometimes Marx talks about the use-value of an object for its user; but in most cases he talks about the 

use-value of an object without regard of particular users. A hammer is still a use-value for both hammering and as 

a doorstop whether its owner has hands or not. 

However Marx’s concept of use-value is relative to society. If a certain plant can be used as a medicine but 

society has not yet discovered this property, then the plant does not have the use-value of a medicine. 

In Marx’s theory it is not true that exchange-values are determined by the use-values. 

Next Message by Pete is [72]. 

[60] Hans: Use-value debate. According to Gza [56], Marx argues as follows: 

when ever someone uses something, the action of use presupposes a value 

that would logically have to preexist the initial use, or else why would the 

person pick up the object and try to use it. 

In other words, people first think about it what they need, and then try the objects which 

might satisfy this need. This is not Marx. In Marx’s view, people do not think first but act 


first. In his notes on Wagner, look at the pdf file wagner.pdf in our collection, p. 538:6/o, 

Marx writes: 

They begin, like every animal, by eating, drinking, etc., that is not by “finding 

themselves” in a relationship, but actively behaving, availing themselves 

of certain things of the outside world by action, and thus satisfying 

their needs. (They start, then, with production.) By the repetition of this 

process the capacity of these things to “satisfy their needs” becomes imprinted 

on their brains; men, like animals, also learn “theoretically” to distinguish 

the outer things which serve to satisfy their needs from all other. 

At a certain stage of evolution, after their needs, and the activities by which 

they are satisfied, have, in the meanwhile, increased and further developed, 

they will linguistically christen entire classes of these things which they 

distinguished by experience from the rest of the outside world. 

The name which people give to these things is “use-value” or “goods.” From this description 

it is very clear that the thing comes first, and only after humankind has established a 

practical relationship between themselves and the thing by using it, have they come up with 

the concept of use-value. 


[77] Tiny: Late contribution. I’ll be honest. I am not too familiar with Karl Marx and 

his theories. I was hoping to learn more from discussions, the instructor and with time. 

I believe both are legitimate answers. I believe items or products have value because of 

labor and use for what is needed. However, although they may the same amount of labor, 

two different products can be produced offering different outcomes for productivity. The 

example given was metal and how the amount can be different in two different regions or 

areas (rich and poor). 

Lawn mower - people need them and use them, so they have value. If we didn’t have 

lawn and lived in the desert, then they wouldn’t have very much value at all. They would 

have some value because of the labor it took to produce them. 

Money is one of the things in which people use because it does have use-value. We have 

given money a form of value-maybe not because it requires a ton of labor to produce (as 

gold or metal would and did), but because we have given it a form of value to which we 

are able to exchange commodities. As the demand for money is increased, the value or 

common element it has with other monies around the world, changes. Vice versa for when 

the demand decreases. Interesting enough, money may not require a lot time and energy 

(labor) to produce, it still can have equal or more value than an object that may have taken 

more time to produce. For example; maybe jewelry. Some cost more than it took to produce. 

I do agree that some jewelry may have more value or may have taken more time because it 

may involve stones -such as diamonds- because of the labor it takes to generate it. 

So, in essence, I believe that both are reasonable answers. Value requires labor, but also 

the use and need for the object.


I hope this is a legitimate answer and if I am off track, I would appreciate any helpful tips 

or insights. Thank you. 

Message [77] referenced by [79]. Next Message by Tiny is [95]. 

[79] Hans: tips. Tiny writes in [77]: 

I believe items or products have value because of labor and use for what is 

needed. 

Here it is important to be clear about the meaning of the word “value”. Marx says that in 

the practical activity of the members of capitalist society, the commodities have two aspects: 

either use-value (in the same way as Tiny is using the term) or exchange-value (meaning, the 

price of the commodity or what it otherwise can be exchanged for). What about the labor 

in the commodities? As long as we are not the producers of the commodity, this labor only 

affects us through its effect either on the use-value or on the price of the commodity. Apart 

from these effects of it, the labor itself does not enter the practical activity of the market 

participants. In the next sentence, Tiny does indeed cast doubt on it whether labor itself is 

relevant: 

However, although they may the same amount of labor, two different products 

can be produced offering different outcomes for productivity. The example 

given was metal and how the amount can be different in two different 

regions or areas (rich and poor). 

Next Tiny brings an example: 

Lawn mower - people need them and use them, so they have value. If we 

didn’t have lawn and lived in the desert, then they wouldn’t have very much 

value at all. 

Right. Nobody would need them. As far as the price is concerned, it would probably not 

be very low, because stores would not carry them and you would have to special-order them. 

And from the fact that lawn mowers are not needed in the desert does not follow that they 

suddenly don’t cost any labor and resources to produce. Maybe that’s why Tiny adds: 

They would have some value because of the labor it took to produce them. 

This example has an additional interesting aspect, considering that this class is taking 

place in Salt Lake City Utah. With only a couple of exceptions, all the class participants live 

in the Salt Lake City area, and I assume Tiny does too. Tiny, I have news for you: we do live 

in the desert. But water is incredibly cheap here, and everyone has a lawn which they have 

to water every day in the Summer. This goes to show again that it is the exchange-values of 

things which affect our behavior, not the underlying realities themselves. 

Tiny continues: 

Money is one of the things which people use because it does have use-value. 

Huh? What is the use-value of a smelly flap of paper? It is one of the many contradictions 

in our society that everybody is after money although money itself is worthless. I hope that 


you will learn in this class to better recognize such contradictions instead of rationalizing 

them away with the fallacious argument: since everybody is after money, money must have 

a use-value. 

At some level, Tiny is aware of this contradiction, because the rest of this paragraph 

contains the sentence: 

Interesting enough, money may not require a lot time and energy (labor) to 

produce, it still can have equal or more value than an object that may have 

taken more time to produce. 

That’s all I wanted to say in response to Tiny’s [77]. Thank you for reading. 

Message [79] referenced by [243] and [2007fa:78]. Next Message by Hans is [93]. 

Exam Question 42 is 25 in 1995WI, 35 in 1996sp, 33 in 1996ut, 36 in 1997sp, 34 in 

1998WI, 38 in 1999SP, 41 in 2004fa, 48 in 2007SP, 47 in 2008fa, 49 in 2009fa, 50 in 


Exam Question 42 What is the exchange-value of a commodity? (Give its definition, not 

an analysis where it comes from). 

[538] Iblindone: graded A– Exchange-value of a commodity. An exchange value is the 

amount of the relative commodity that it takes to equal the equivalent, whether it be another 

commodity or money. It is also the social property inherent in a commodity that allows it to 

be traded. 

Hans: The commodity whose exchange-value is considered is always in the relative form; the equivalent is the 

commodity used to express the exchange-value of the relative commodity. Therefore you should have said: “An 

exchange value is the amount of the equivalent that it takes to equal the relative commodity, whether this equivalent 

be another commodity or money.” 

Your second sentence is correct too. How did you end up with two such different definitions? Well, your first 

sentence is not a definition of the exchange-value itself, but of its quantity. 

Message [538] referenced by [563]. Next Message by Iblindone is [543]. 

[554] Hans: Keep it simple. The exchange-value of a commodity is its ability to be 

exchanged for other commodities. 

This is a perfectly satisfactory answer. Designated exam questions usually have short 

answers. 

Message [554] referenced by [2012fa:27] and [2012fa:325]. Next Message by Hans is [563]. 

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

Question 43 Joseph, who lives in a capitalist society, regularly swaps his wife with the wife 

of his friend. Does this mean Joseph’s wife has exchange-value in capitalism? 

[34] BonzoIsGod: (graded A) Wife swapping exchange-value. A wife in a “wife swapping” 

situation has no exchange value as long as the swapping exists between the husband 

(Joseph) and his friend. In a situation where two individuals are exchanging a thing that is 

not regularly exchanged, this thing has no exchange-value (Ehrbar, 18). The requirement for 

establishing an exchange-value in this situation would be for “wife swapping” to become 

not only a socially acceptable practice, but also a regular practice in a capitalist society. 

Hans: Concise formulation with a lot of content.


Message [34] referenced by [35], [37], and [1612]. Next Message by BonzoIsGod is [110]. 

[35] Hans: No market for wife-swapping. BonzoIsGod’s answer [34] is excellent. It 

would have received an A had it been graded. As Bonzo stresses at the end, the reason why 

wives do not have exchange-value in capitalist society has nothing to do with it whether 

wife-swapping is socially acceptable. We live in a society in which there is simply not a 

market for swapping wives. Joseph’s private arrangement with his friend does not alter this 

social fact. On the other hand, many things which do have an exchange-value are not socially 

acceptable: there is a market for illegal drugs, for prostitution, etc. 

Message [35] referenced by [37] and [1612]. Next Message by Hans is [46]. 

[37] Thugtorious: (graded A–) In response to BonzoIsGod’s comment [34] and Hans’ 

reply [35], let’s assume that we do live in a bourgeois society where prostitution of this type 

is socially acceptable. This is not a far reaching assumption because in a purely market based 

system without regulations, there would most certainly be a market for sex. However, even in 

this type of derived system, “wife-swapping” would still not have an exchange-value. Marx 

says in the first chapter of Capital that “if the use-values were not qualitatively different 

forms of useful labour, they would be absolutely incapable of confronting each other as 

commodities. Coats cannot be exchanged for coats, one use-value cannot be exchanged for 

another of the same kind” (Fowkes, p 132). Therefore, one wife cannot be exchanged for 

another wife due to their homogeneous nature and comparable use-values (even though these 

“commodities” may not seem homogeneous because every human is different, they are just 

as homogeneous as two coats made by two seperate tailors). Now, if Joseph (the husband) 

offered up his wife in exchange for another man’s automobile, that would be an entirely 

different argument. 

Hans: I don’t think the homogeneity of wives is the issue here, but you have a point: a society is thinkable in 

which wife-swapping is commonplace, but where it is not possible to trade wives for other commodities. In such 

a society Joseph’s wife would have an exchange-value with respect to other wives, but not with respect to other 

commodities. 

This is a plausible example of a class of services (“wives”) which takes an intermediate form between complete 

lack of exchangeability and full exchangeability for all other commodities. 

However you did not quite interpret it right: it is not the homogeneity of wives that prevents them from being 

traded for goods other than wives, but perhaps the society’s resistance against the slide of such an exchangeritual 

into prostitution pure and simple. Indeed, your suggestion that wives are homogeneous might be considered 

offensive by your conversation partners. 

Message [37] referenced by [40]. Next Message by Thugtorious is [53]. 

[40] Gza: (graded A–) The use-value of a wife. I understand that Marx suggests that 

“coats cannot be exchanged for coats” in that “one use-value cannot be exchanged for another 

of the same kind”. However, in response to Thugtorious’s [37] I’d like to say that wives 

are not like coats in that each wife may have different abilities and different “value”. One 

may be able to do things and perform duties that the other cannot. If we assume that the individual’s 

skill is taken into account and thought of as “use-value” than each wife would have 

a different “exchange-value”, unlike the “coat for a coat” exchange. I think this ties back 

into Marx’s definition of “properties”. As suggested, “properties do not determine the thing” 

but “its properties have to be elicited in the relation of the thing” (Ehrbar 12). Each wife not 

only may have different “physical” properties but also may manifest different properties in 

the way of her usefulness in relation to the husband. One husband may value certain properties 

in the other husband’s wife and “gain” from the exchange. The other husband may see a 


diverse property or use-value in the other wife that is not intrinsic in his. We can also apply 

use-value as the absence of certain diverse characteristics in the two wives. 

Hans: Interesting application of the concept of use-value to your spouse. I hope this is only a theoretical exercise 

for you. 

Or let me put it this way: assuming that Thugtorious’s approach in [37] is correct, it makes sense to ask what 

the use-value of a wife is. But you should have given a “don’t try this at home” warning in your answer: such an 

instrumentalist approach to your wife (or, for that matter, to anyone) is problematic. 

Next Message by Gza is [41]. 


Question 44 In the United States of America, children who lose their baby teeth often get a 

quarter for each tooth from their mother who pretends to be the tooth fairy. Does this mean 

that baby teeth have exchange-value in this society? 

[249] SueGirl: graded A Do baby teeth possess exchange-value in our society? Although 

children in the United States traditionally receive money for each lost tooth from their parents 

posing as tooth fairies, this does not qualify baby teeth as having exchange-value in 

society. The annotation’s first bullet point concerning exchange value seems to indicate that 

the teeth do have exchange value because it refers to the social nature behind exchange-value 

(Ehrbar, 18). Since exchanging a quarter for a tooth is a tradition in American society, one 

would think that this qualifies the teeth as having exchange-value. However, in the next bullet 

we read that “exchange-value resides in the commodity itself” and that the commodities 

are not part of a bigger social ritual. In other words, the purpose of the exchange should be 

to transfer ownership of a commodity, not just continue a social tradition. A parent gives 

the quarter in exchange for the teeth not because they want to transfer ownership, since they 

would have little reason to desire them, but because of (to quote Tevyah from Fiddler on the 

Roof) “tradition”. This helps to qualify the teeth as not having exchange-value in American 

society because the purpose is not to transfer ownership of the teeth. 

Exchanging your old car for a different one at a used car dealership would indicate that the 

cars have exchange-value because the purpose is to transfer ownership of the commodities 

themselves. 

Message [249] referenced by [688], [795], and [809]. Next Message by SueGirl is [315]. 

[688] Claire: To expand on my answer to the test, baby teeth do not have exchange value. 

In my answer I stated that the reason we produce baby teeth is for our own personal use. 

Marx states that exchange-value is social, not individual. Marx continues by saying “if two 

individuals decide to exchange things which are commonly not exchanged, this does not 

give these things exchange value” (Annotations, p18). Therefore, baby teeth are put into this 

not commonly exchanged category and therefore do not have exchange-value according to 

Marx. 

“The exchange-value of a commodity is that social property, the ‘worth’ inherent in this 

good, which allows it to be traded for other goods or to be sold and purchased” (Annotations, 

p18). In my submission to the test I stated that one could not buy groceries for baby teeth 

because there is no social property or “worth” that is inherent in teeth.


I also stated that baby teeth are not commodities. Since they are not commodities they 

have lost their exchange-value. Suegirl [249] states that tradition was the reason the parents 

give a child money for their tooth, not because they want to transfer ownership. 

Message [688] referenced by [949]. Next Message by Claire is [690]. 

[735] BonzoIsGod: graded A Baby teeth in American society do not have exchange-value. 

Although this practice is accepted by American society, i.e. many Americans practice this 

ritual, the teeth possess no value to the parent that is collecting them. “Exchange value 

resides in the commodity itself” (Ehrbar, 18). If there was a “teeth smoldering” plant where 

parents could turn in the teeth for another commodity, then it could be argued that baby teeth 

have exchange-value. 

Hans: I think you mean the value of the teeth to the parents is only symbolic; it does not come from the teeth 

themselves. 

Next Message by BonzoIsGod is [736]. 

[742] McDugall: graded A At first glance teeth do possess exchange-value, the parents 

are buying the dead tooth from the child. The child will gladly exchange the tooth for the 

money he or she can use to purchase something they like. The parents on the other hand are 

merely giving the child money out of a social obligation they chose to uphold. They have no 

need for the tooth, there is little practical value for the tooth, unless they add it to a childhood 

book or something of that sort. Since under most circumstances the parents have little desire 

to use the tooth, the tooth does not possess exchange value because the tooth is exchanged 

in a social tradition not as a commodity. 

Next Message by McDugall is [787]. 

[764] Bob: The exchange of money for a child’s tooth is an old tradition. The exchange 

for the tooth and money has nothing to do with ownership. This is what would need to occur 

to qualify the baby tooth as having exchange-value. To quote from the annotations we read: 

“exchange-value resides in the commodity itself.” The answer to the question would be no, 

the baby teeth have no exchange-value in society. So when the parent exchanges the quarter 

for the tooth she has another reason of doing so other than for the ownership of the tooth. It 

is just a tradition that parents continue to do without an exchange-value. 

Next Message by Bob is [765]. 

[775] Tink: graded A Baby teeth don’t carry exchange value, because they do not have 

abstract human labor within them. Parents that give their children a quarter for their baby 

teeth (while pretending to be the tooth fairy) are simply acting upon custom within their 

society. However if the tooth fairy really did exist and did pay for children’s baby teeth, that 

would mean the teeth have some sort of use-value to the tooth fairy, but the exchange value 

would have to be determined by what inherent charaterisitc is found in all goods a tooth fairy 

society might exchange. 

Hans: It takes a lot of care and many supplies to raise a baby. Therefore the baby (including its teeth) does have 

abstract labor in it. 

But you are right, for a full understanding of the situation it is necessary to ask what would be the case if the 

fiction about the tooth fairy were true, because this if the world the child experiences (or is supposed to experience). 

You are the only one who asked this question. 

Message [775] referenced by [949]. Next Message by Tink is [1000]. 

[795] Ace: graded A In the annotations it says that “exchange-value resides in the commodity 

itself” and that “commodities are not embedded in a bigger social ritual” (Ehrbar 


18). Exchanging a tooth for money is considered a ritual in our society; much like exchanging 

wedding bands in a wedding ceremony the exchange is just part of the ceremony. One 

of the major objectives of trading with different producers is to transfer ownership of the 

commodity. 

In the homework submission [249] SueGirl made an interesting comment on how exchange 

value should be viewed, she said that it should be a “transfer ownership of a commodity, 

not just continue a social tradition.” I think that this being said that a parent putting 

a quarter under a child’s pillow when a baby tooth is lost should not be counted as exchange 

value but as a continuation of a social tradition. 

Next Message by Ace is [796]. 

[801] Adamwest: Baby teeth exchange-value goes through the roof. The fact that 

mothers give their children a quarter for a tooth does not give baby teeth exchange-value. 

When two parties exchange commodities, both parties walk away with some commodity that 

has a certain use-value. Use-value is very important to the exchange. Just because mothers 

agree to pay for their childs teeth by no means should lead us to believe that baby teeth have 

use-value. This is simply a tradition, a mother wouldn’t pay for her neighbor’s teeth, because 

they have no use-value. Exchange-value resides in the commodity itself, when an exchange 

takes place there is a transfer of ownership that occurs. With baby teeth the parent is not 

giving their child money so they can take ownership of the tooth, they are merely doing it to 

continue an old tradition. 

Hans: The thought experiment with the neighor’s tooth (even if it would be identical as a physial object) is good 

proof that the exchange of the baby tooth does not originate in the tooth itself. 

Message [801] referenced by [2012fa:4]. Next Message by Adamwest is [802]. 

[809] Mullin: Marx states that “the exchange values of a commodity is that social property, 

the ‘worth’ inherent in this good, which allows it to be traded for other goods or to be 

sold and purchased.” Reflect back to the time that you were five years old and you had just 

lost your first tooth. Excitement surely rushed through your mind and body as you almost 

instantly felt yourself reach a new stage of maturation and responsibility. However, yours 

was a family that did not practice the tradition of a tooth fairy. At this moment does your 

ragged baby tooth, surely stained with blood, hold any value or worth outside of that which 

you have assigned for its assistance in your maturation process? No, it does not and for this 

reason alone it cannot hold an exchange value. 

Marx continues, “exchange-value is social, not individual. If two individuals decide to exchange 

things which are commonly not exchanged, this does not give these things exchangevalue.” 

It is upon these two statementst that I base my conclusion. The decision to exchange 

a tooth for a quarter, or any other monetary amount, is not determined by society but rather 

by the family to which you belong. It thus becomes an individual exchange of a “commodity” 

and in this itself negates any possibliity of being a social exchange of commonly 

exchanged commodities. 

It can thus be summed up in Marx’s last statement that “exhchange-value” resides in the 

commodity itself. SueGirl said in [249], “a parent gives the quarter in exchange for the teeth 

not because they want to transfer ownership, since they would have little reason to desire 

them, but because of (to quote Tevyah from Fiddler on the Roof) ‘tradition.’ This helps to


qualify the teeth as not having exchange-value in American society because the purpose is 

not to transfer ownership of the teeth.” 

I leave the challenge to form a market for baby teeth where they can be exchanged for 

other commodities. When this occurs, please send me an urgent email so that I can take full 

advantage of finding teeth at a discount and selling them at a market for a premium thus 

establishing an exchange value. Until then it will remain a tradition which brings a smile 

to both the tooth fairy, the parent, and the toothless child, leaving both with a smile and the 

parent with nothing of social value in their possession in exchange. 

Hans: In your second paragraph you are overshooting your argument. The tooth fairy is not an individual quirk 

but a social custom. In this respect, this example differs from the wife-swapping example. 

Message [809] referenced by [949]. Next Message by Mullin is [810]. 

[820] Tesa: graded A The tooth fairy. First of all, an exchange value is the outward 

manifestation of the value in a commodity. Secondly, exchange-value is social (annotations 

pp 18), by these terms the tooth is not an exchange-value. Assuming that the baby is laboring 

to produce a commodity to exchange by growing and loosing a tooth is absurd. The teeth 

are only valuable (or treasured) by the parent, not society as a whole. As SueGirl said (249) 

“The purpose of the exchange should be to transfer ownership of a commodity, not just 

continue a social tradition”. 

Hans: The tooth fairy ritual is social enough, but its purpose is not to transfer ownership. 

Message [820] referenced by [949]. Next Message by Tesa is [842]. 

[835] Jerm: This act does not give a baby tooth exchange-value because exchange-value 

is social, not individual. In the annotations it says, “If two individuals decide to exchange 

things which are commonly not exchanged, this does not give these things exchange-value.” 

Another reason why this act does not give the tooth exchange value is because in the United 

States of America, a tooth does not have use-value. In order for a commodity to have 

exchange-value, it must have use-value. Use-values are the material “carriers” of exchangevalue. 

Message [835] referenced by [949]. Next Message by Jerm is [1161]. 

[862] Xerho: graded A– Yes. According to Marx, exchange value is a manifestation of 

value embedded in a commodity, with social influences manipulating what the exchange 

value is in comparison to other commodities. 

The social tradition in the United States of exchanging a lost tooth for a quarter is a 

socially-derived exchange value for a commodity. While this commodity does not intrinsically 

involve abstract labor going into its creation/production, that does not preclude its 

usefulness as a social milestone, nor its ability to stand on its own in reference to another 

commodity, or money in exchange. 

Hans: You are right, the tooth fairy is social, not an individual quirk like the wife-swapper. But you are wrong to 

say that the tooth stands on its own. An ordinary commodity is exchanged for its own sake, i.e., in order to transfer 

ownership of the thing itself. The tooth fairy ritual does not have the purpose of transferring ownership of the tooth, 

but it is the celebration of a milestone in the child’s development. 

Message [862] referenced by [949]. Next Message by Xerho is [863]. 

[884] Matt: No, this does not mean that baby teeth have an exchange value in society. In 

order for something to have an exchange value it must be a commodity. Due to the fact that 

no labor was put into it what so ever, it is not a commodity. Also getting money from the 

tooth fairy (mother) is a custom that is native here in America. Since it is merely a custom 


that means that this kind of exchange is supposed to take place. Marx says that exchangevalue 

resides in the commodity itself. The exchange-value of commodities themselves are 

not embedded in a bigger social ritual. So ultimately the exchange does not take place 

because both sides are benefiting or in some way trying to. In the exchange, one side is 

benefiting because that’s what is expected due to society. 

Message [884] referenced by [949]. Next Message by Matt is [886]. 

[901] Miron: Baby teeth don’t have exchange value. It is a custom in society that has 

been passed on from generation to generation. The parents are simply acting as though it 

is a custom. The main reason why baby teeth don’t carry exchange value is because they 

don’t have abstract human labor. There would be an actual exchange value if the tooth fairy 

did exist, because it would be a specific amount of money that the tooth fairy would give 

for every tooth a baby lost. The value of these teeth would thus have monetary value for the 

baby and an actual use value for the tooth fairy. 

Message [901] referenced by [949]. Next Message by Miron is [902]. 

[913] Pete: graded B– One must determine what kind of exchange value baby teeth have. 

Is there a market for them? No, there is no labor involved. But in the Tooth Fairy world 

they must have some exchange value. The TF (tooth fairy) must understand the concept of 

capitalism and how things are only good for trading or bartering. As it is in the real world 

the only value a baby tooth has is sentimental. Since the TF is thousands of years old he/she 

probably has gone through all the theories of exchange. Marx is just one of them. 

Message [913] referenced by [949]. Next Message by Pete is [1013]. 

[949] Hans: Exchange value. Let us try the following definition and see how far it takes 

us: 

A good is an exchange-value in a certain society if it is socially customary 

in that society to use this good as a means to acquire other goods through 

exchange. 

I chose this formulation in order to emphasize the following points: 

(1) it must be a social custom, not just an individual decision to exchange the good. If you 

and I decide to exchange a piece of paper filled with my doodles for your fingernail clippings, 

then it is entirely possible to make this exchange, but those things are not exchange-values 

(assuming I am not Picasso and you are not Marilyn Monroe). Individuals can do many 

things which are not social customs, and we will not be struck by lightning because we 

exchange things which are not exchange-values. 

(2) the exchange of the goods must have the purpose to transfer ownership of the goods. 

If a newly-wed couple exchanges their wedding bands during the marriage ceremony, this 

is a socially sanctioned exchange and not just an individual decision, but the purpose of 

this exchange is not to transfer ownership of the goods, but this exchange symbolizes the 

marriage relationship. 

(3) I deliberately wrote “a good is exchange-value” instead of “a good has exchangevalue” 

because at this point it does not matter why these things can be exchanged. The 

important point is that ownership of the good is commonly transferred through exchange, 

regardless of the reason. If I write “a good has exchange-value,” then it sounds as if I was


referring to something in the good which causes it to be exchanged. But right now I am not 

digging for the reason, I am just stating the fact that the thing can be exchanged. 

Now let’s go to the baby tooth. Is the baby tooth an exchange-value? Criterion (1) clearly 

holds, the exchange of the baby tooth for a quarter is not merely the mother’s individual 

decision but it is an action based on a social custom. In this respect, [809], [820], [835] and 

perhaps also [688] are simply wrong. 

Criterion (2) however is not satisfied, and this is enough, the failure of criterion (2) prevents 

the baby tooth from being an exchange-value. 

[775], [884], [901], and [913] argue that the baby tooth is not an exchange-value because 

it does not contain abstract human labor, and [688] and [820] argue that it is not an exchangevalue 

because it is not produced for sale. This is not the right way to answer this question 

because of point (3) above. The question was not whether the baby tooth has value, but 

whether it is an exchange-value. [862] got that part right. 

Message [949] referenced by [967], [981], [2007SP:289], [2008fa:434], [2009fa:318], [2010fa:291], [2012fa:4], 

[2012fa:325], and [2012fa:326]. Next Message by Hans is [957]. 

[981] Bosox: I don’t believe that baby-teeth would have exchange-value in a society. One 

of the main reasons would be because they do not have abstract human labor to go with 

them, which is a big requirement for a commodity to have exchange value. The custom in 

American Society is to give money to children after they lose their baby teeth, this does not 

give baby teeth any exchange value. Baby teeth are not commodities. An item has exchange 

value, if and only if it has use-value. Marx states that commodities are the only thing that 

has use-value, which allows a commodity to be exchanged with other people, thus providing 

it with an exhange-value. 

Besides this fun custom it is difficult or nearly impossible to find a use for baby-teeth. 

Baby teeth have little or no use-value, thus making them useless and thus prohibiting them 

from becoming exchangeable and thus depriving them of their exchange value. 

Hans: Your two criteria do not hold water. About the requirement to have abstract labor in them, see my [949], 

and your aphorism that a good has exchange-value if and only if it has use-value contradicts not only Marx’s theory 

but also common sense. 

Next Message by Bosox is [1268]. 

Question 46 is 38 in 1998WI, 47 in 2003fa, 45 in 2004fa, and 51 in 2008fa: 

Question 46 What would a Marxist say about the following argument: the exchange-value 

of an item is created through demand, not by the item itself. If nobody demands the item, it 

cannot be traded for anything. In other words, exchange-value is created by people wanting 

the item. 

[142] Bubba: graded B+ Exchange values and demand. Exchange values are not created 

through demand, according to Marx and the annotations. The biggest hint was the statement 

that “If two individuals decide to exchange things which are commonly not exchanged, 

this does not give these things exchange-value,” even though we can assume that those two 

individuals made the transaction because of each’s demand. Another was that “exchange 

value resides in the commodity itself,” therefore, not in the individual’s attachment to his 

commodity. 


I suspect that this is leading into some form of the just-price doctrine that existed in early 

feudalism to show, for instance, that a hypothetical bread merchant (at least if he controls 

more food than he’s selling and therefore keeps prices “artificially” high) in a famine is not 

justified in increasing the price of his bread to the point of his customers having to sell their 

homes to feed their families. The starving people would still make the transaction but only 

out of the fear of death and having no other alternatives. The fact that someone would sell 

his home for food for a few weeks does not change the fact that a home has a great deal more 

exchange-value than such a small amount of food: the merchant simply chose to ignore the 

exchange-values. If, however, the merchant had to go through a lot of work to get the food 

to sell it (and assuming he was not monopolizing), his high prices could be the legitimate 

appearance of his own labor in the product. 

To summarize the answer for the argument: exchange-values are supply-determined 

(which boils down to labor), not demand-determined (which is unjust). 

Hans: The only problem with your argument is your implication that exchange-values are supply-determined because 

this is more just. Please read my [111]. 

Next Message by Bubba is [318]. 

Exam Question 47 is 24 in 1995WI, 32 in 1995ut, 39 in 2001fa, 40 in 2002fa, 46 in 

2004fa, 52 in 2008fa, 54 in 2009fa, 55 in 2010fa, 60 in 2011fa, and 58 in 2012fa: 

Exam Question 47 Explain in your own words what it means to say that use-values are the 

“material carriers” of exchange-value. 

[549] MrPink: graded A– The exchange value is dependent on the existence of a use value 

for the commodity. However, an exchange value does not have to exist for the commodity 

to have a use value. 

Additionally, the use value will stay the same whereas the exchange value can fluctuate 

due to advances in technology (which can increase the exchange value). 

Hans: Advances in technology usually decrease the exchange value. 

Next Message by MrPink is [693]. 

Question 52 is 59 in 2007SP and 60 in 2008fa: 

Question 52 Are there other places in Capital where Marx says that the exchange values 

seem accidental? 

[156] Mjk: The main area where Marx said anything about exchange-value is “accidental”, 

which means that it is determined by a multitude of distinction forces. Marx also has 

pointed out a lot suggestions by saying that exchange-value is a social, not individual. For 

example, if two people have decided to exchange items, which have not been changed, this 

does not give exchange-value, i.e a dog with watch. 

Another thing that I found out in Marx’s understanding about exchange-value is that he 

said that exchange-value is seemed to be something accidental and purely relative——-that 

means it does not come from the commodity themselves but also from the conditions of each 

exchange. 

There was one time I heard people (traders) exchanging goods and services by another 

goods and services. However, for example, the first person needed a cow and the second


person wanted to get a corn, in this case, they exchanged cow with corn. Each of them has a 

greater utility and happier when exchanging cow by corn. 

Finally, I believe that exchange-value of a commodity should not be derived from its usevalues 

as Marx put it. We could know that what Marx meant by saying “accidental” and 

“Purely relative” have something to do with huge number of forces in the market conditions. 

Hans: You seem to have language difficulties which prevent you from understanding the question asked. This is 

also true for your [158]. 


Question 55 is 47 in 2001fa, 48 in 2002fa, 50 in 2003fa, 55 in 2004fa, 66 in 2007SP, 66 

in 2007fa, 67 in 2008fa, 69 in 2009fa, 70 in 2010fa, and 77 in 2012fa: 

Question 55 Why does Marx write in 127:1 “the valid exchange-values,” instead of simply 

“the exchange-values”? 

[36] Thugtorious: content A form 90% (As Submitted:) The answer to this 

Use-values which affect the relations of question is relatively simple, and explained 

production. The answer to this question is very thoroughly by both Marx and Hans. 

Marx says “the valid exchange-values” instead 

of just “exchange values” in this pas- 

relatively simple, and explained very thorsage because there are enumerated exchangeoughly 

by both Marx and Hans. Marx says values for one commodity, not just one 

set quantitative amount for which it is ex- 

“the valid exchange-values” instead of just changed. The example given is “one-quarter 

of wheat” has an exchange-value equiva- 

“exchange values” in this passage because lent to x amount of shoe polish, y amount 

of silk, and z amount of gold; all qualita- 

there are numerous exchange-values for a tively different amounts with one-quarter of 

given commodity, not just one set quantita- wheat remaining the same. They are all intive 

amount for which it is exchanged. The 

example given, one-quarter of wheat, has 

an exchange-value equivalent to x amount 

of shoe polish, y amount of silk, and z 

amount of gold; all qualitatively different 

amounts with one-quarter of wheat remaining 

the same. They are all interchangeable 

with each other. 

terchangable with each other. 

I believe that Marx was very careful in 

his word selection while writing Das Kapital, 

and this is a prime example. If he would 

I believe that Marx was very careful in have wrote simply “exchange values,” a lay- 

his word selection while writing Das Kapmen reader might interpret that as one quanital, 

and this is a prime example. If he titative amount that defines a commodities 

would have written simply “exchange val- exchange value regardless of the commodues,” 

a layperson reader might interpret that ity with which it is to be traded. However, 

as one quantitative amount that defines a with this foresight, he chose to write “all 


valid exchange values” because he recog- 

commodity’s exchange value regardless of nized the possible misinterpretation. Each 

the commodity with which it is to be traded. of the previously mentioned commodities 

are all traded at differing amounts for a quar- 

However, with this foresight, he chose to ter of wheat, but they are all the same in 

write “all valid exchange values” because he magnitude. As Hans says: they represent 

recognized the possible misinterpretation. “all the other exchanges that would have 

Each of the previously mentioned commodi- been possible but did not happen” (Hans, p 

ties are all traded at differing amounts for a 51). 

quarter of wheat, but they are all the same 

in magnitude. As Hans says: they represent 

“all the other exchanges that would have 

been possible but did not happen” (Hans, p 

51). 

Hans: Marx did not explain thoroughly what the formulation “valid” means; and my interpretation in the Annotations 

is only one of many possibilities. Now I am inclined to think that Marx threw the adjective “valid” into 

this sentence to emphasize that these exchange-values are a social expression of something despite the fact that the 

individual traders do not choose them, but they are given to them by the market. These are the exchange proportions 

which they find as the valid market proportions. 

A few editorial corrections were necessary to make your text acceptable. Only small things, nothing which you 

couldn’t have done yourself. My edited version is in the left column, and your original in the right. I subtracted 10 

percent from the grade point number for the formal flaws of your answer; i.e. your grade point is not 4.0 but 3.6. 

Message [36] referenced by [2007SP:282]. Next Message by Thugtorious is [37]. 

Question 56 is 277 in 1996sp, 67 in 2007fa, 68 in 2008SP, 68 in 2008fa, 71 in 2009fa, 

and 72 in 2010fa: 

Question 56 First give Marx’s arguments how one can come to the conclusion that exchangevalue 

is not something inherent in the commodity. Then reproduce, in your own words, 

Marx’s rebuttal that, despite these arguments, exchange-value seems to be something inherent 

to the commodity after all. 

[62] Kowski: graded A Exchange Value. Marx describes how one could conclude that 

exchange value is not an inherent characteristic of a commodity. Because goods can be exchanged 

at varying amounts, times, and places — things that are external to the commodity 

itself and are constantly changing, — the exchange value seems to come from these external 

conditions of the exchanges and are, as Marx puts it, ‘accidental’ and ‘purely relative’. 

While it is easy to understand how one can reach the conclusion that exchange value is not 

an intrinsic characteristic of a commodity based on these arguments, Marx counters with 

another argument claiming that exchange value is actually inherent in a commodity. Every 

transaction that takes place trades an amount of something for an amount of something 

else. While the amounts of each good are different, they are equal in worth. This equality 

in worth depending on the goods being traded shows that the exchange value is inherent in 

each commodity. The exchange value cannot be expressed unless the commodity is known, 

thus it is inherent. 

Hans: Excellent answer. 

Question 57 is 68 in 2007fa and 69 in 2008fa:


Question 57 What is the difference between mode of expression and form of appearance? 

[72] Pete: graded A– This question is important in distinguishing raw and cooked, as it 

were. Marx said, “Let us take two commodities, such as a coat and 10 yards of linen, and 

let the value of the first be twice the value of the second.” This means that a “cooked” coat 

is worth twice what the “raw” linen is worth. Marx goes on to say, “the coat is a use-value 

that satisfies a particular need. A specific kind of productive activity is required to bring it 

into existence. This activity is determined by its aim, mode of operation, object, means and 

result”. Marx uses the term “useful labour” to encompass all of the above conditions. 

Yes, the linen had to go through processes to become linen, that is where we get the 

worth. In order to make the coat useful labour is needed to cut, fit, and sew that coat and that 

takes added useful labor. Because the added labour is needed to create the coat it becomes 

more valuable. 

The “Mode of expression” is the linen needing to be turned into something else, in this 

case a coat. The “form of appearance” is the linen shaped into a coat. Thus the linen itself 

is “raw” material and the coat is the “Form of Appearance” that the linen takes on or the 

“cooked” product. 


[73] Hans: The coats were made of wool. Pete’s [72] is a well formulated mini-essay and 

intelligent guess, but it does not accurately reflect Marx’s use of the words. Marx talks a lot 

about linen and coats in chapter One, but the relationship between them is a pure exchange 

relationship, it is not the relationship between raw material and finished product. The coat 

Marx was thinking about was a woolen coat. Pete’s error is often made in this class, and I 

addressed it on the bottom of p. 78 in the printed version of the Annotations. Please take a 

note of it. Anyone who makes this error in the future will have his or her grade penalized. 

Pete: With all due respect when I wrote this answer I was not aware of the bottom of page 78 even existed. It was 

a honest incorrect assumption. I now know that it is not comparing linen to anything but itself. 

Hans: How can you compare something with itself? According to Marx’s theory, the market rates of exchange 

between coat and linen come from a comparison, through market competition, of the labors in coat and linen. 

Pete: I am puzzled. OK we cannot compare coats and linens, and linens cannot be compared to themselves, the 

only other factor is labor. Is that what we are comparing to get to a value? 

Message [73] referenced by [338], [1883], and [1897]. Next Message by Hans is [79]. 

[75] Keltose: content A– form 80% This topic can be viewed by anyone observing social 

interactions with people in the market and their reactions to quantities. In any market there 

are “different quantities of the same stuff” (Hans), however the exchange values are determined 

at a social level, which then affects the market level. Marx states that the “surface of 

the economy” is the market. I agree that the surface is where all demand is formed and then 

is directly related to the production process. As Marx states that the mode of expression 

must be equal to the exchange-value, therefore I think that the biggest difference between 

mode of expression and form of appearance is that form of appearance has no exchange 

value and is “governed by other social relations.” 

Hans: You seem to understand the issue pretty well, but your formulations must be much clearer than this. 

Message [75] referenced by [93]. Next Message by Keltose is [332]. 

[80] MK: Form of appearance is (I believe) the way in which a “relationship” appears or 

manifests. Keeping in mind that “value” itself is something that we cannot directly observe, 


it seems that it (value) appears (its form of appearance), by means of mode of expression ie., 

money. 

Because the two terms have been difficult at best to articulate, please let me know in 

which way I am mistaken. 

Message [80] referenced by [93]. Next Message by MK is [81]. 

[90] Pete: response to question 57. Hans, With all due respect when I wrote this answer 

I was not aware of the bottom of page 78 even existed. It was a honest incorrect assumption. 

I now know that it is not comparing linen to anything but itself. 


[93] Hans: Mode of expression and form of appearance. Marx wrote: 

Exchange-value ... cannot be anything other than the mere mode of expression, 

“form of appearance,” of some content distinguishable from it. 

Question 57 asks you to make sense of this formulation. What is the difference between 

mode of expression and form of appearance? 

This is a difficult question and I am not sure whether I know the right answer. “Mode 

of expression” seems to be the weaker term: something is an expression of something else 

if it is a sign that the other thing is happening. Look at question 633 on p. 498 of the 

Annotations, and the text to which it refers. The form of appearance of value is much more 

than just an expression: it is the handle through which the invisible value is established 

and also exerts its influence. I think MK’s [80] shows an excellent understanding, and also 

Keltose’s [75] definitely goes in the right direction. But Keltose should have worked on his 

or her formulations a little better; after all, this is a communications and writings course. 


[104] Pete: I am puzzled. OK we cannot compare coats and linens, and linens cannot be 

compared to themselves, the only other factor is labor. Is that what we are comparing to get 

to a value? 



Question 59 Comment about the following critique of Marx: When Marx asks what is 

the meaning of the exchange relation between two commodities, he commits the error of 

treating the economy like a literary text. The actions of the economic agents must be causally 

explained, but any reflection about their “meaning” is an interpretation which does not help 

us understand what is really going on. 

[149] Xerho: graded B+ Using Literary Text to describe causal agents. While it is 

true that by Marx using literary text to explain an economic function that is explained best 

through its causal agents, it does not necessarily help to understand what the underlying 

relationship is between the agents. Literary text, or words that define something or interpret 

something are necessary on both sides of the equation between causal agents in order to 

understand how these agents interact together. Marx is aware of this error in explanation, 

but sometimes backing up to a more rudimentary approach like literary defining in economic


phenomenon is appropriate in order to build a better foundation with which to build later 

using the more appropriate causal agents to describe what is truly going on. 

Hans: You seem to think the question asked why Marx is using a literary (or philosophical) text, Das Kapital, to 

understand the economy, instead of just explaining what the people in a capitalist economy are doing. 

This is not what the question asked, and I am not even sure if this was indeed your interpretation of the question, 

but I would like to just make two points regarding your answer as I understand it: 

1. The behavior of the individuals cannot by itself explain capitalism, because this behavior does not explain 

the conditions under which people act. 

2. The philosophical-sounding arguments at the beginning of Das Kapital are not preliminaries setting the stage 

for the real explanation, but they are Marx’s attempts to infer the conditions of people’s actions from these actions 

themselves. 

Next Message by Xerho is [216]. 

Question 62 is 31 in 1995WI, 40 in 1996ut, 38 in 1997ut, 55 in 2002fa, 57 in 2003fa, 73 

in 2007SP, 73 in 2007fa, 74 in 2008fa, 77 in 2010fa, and 90 in 2011fa: 

Question 62 Marx argues that commodities are exchangeable only because they contain 

some common substance. Bailey denies this. He compares the exchange-value of commodities 

with the distance between points, which is not based on a commonality between the two 

points but is purely relative: “As we cannot speak of the distance of any object without 

implying some other object, between which and the former this relation exists, so we cannot 

speak of the value of a commodity but in reference to another commodity compared with it. 

A thing cannot be valuable in itself without reference to another thing” . Comment. 

[83] Thugtorious: graded A Bailey’s Critique of Marx. In deriving the exchange relationship 

between two commodities, Marx argues that there is a common substance within 

the commodities that makes them exchangeable. We find out later that this “element” is 

abstract human labor. However, Bailey argues that the exchangeability of two commodities 

has nothing to do with a commonality between the two commodities, but can be likened to 

the distance between two points, which is purely relative. Unfortunately, the distance between 

two points remains completely relative and has not applicability to market operations 

or exchange unless there is a denomination or mechanism at which the two “points” can be 

related. Let me explain: 

There is two ways to look at this situation. The first example elaborates on Bailey’s geometric 

example about two points. Bailey’s focus is on the line connecting the two points, 

but if you do not define a mechanism of measurement to evaluate the length of such a line 

then the line itself is irrelevant. For example, if Bailey chose to use “feet” as the basis of 

comparison, then the distance would be X amount of feet showing a quantified relationship 

between the two points. This is what abstract human labor is equated to: defining the “distance” 

between two commodities in the market place. Marx chose labor as his proverbial 

“yard stick.” Without such a yard stick, the two points may be connected, but there is no way 

to tell at what extent they are connected. 

The second example is arithmetic in nature. If you want to compare two fractions while 

cooking because you are increasing the size of your recipe, then you have to make the 

denominators of both fractions equal. Much the same thing is going on in transactions in 

the market. When comparing two commodities for exchange in the market, the common 


denominator is abstract human labor. The denominator is just like the “yard stick” in the 

previous example: without it, there is no relevant relationship between the two commodities. 

Overall, I think Bailey missed a large part of Marx’s argument: on the surface of the 

exchange, the decided values of each commodity may appear purely relative. However, if 

you dig deeper into each commodity, down into the mode of production, you find that there 

is a common element: abstract human labor. Bailey did not go deep enough into Marx’s 

argument but decided to take the contradiction of exchange as a given and move on with the 

analysis without resolving the contradiction. 


[106] Hans: How distant is a relative? Oops, I meant, how relative is a distance? In a 

manuscript discussing the above quote from Bailey, Marx argues that the distance between 

two points is not as relative as it may seem. He brings two considerations. Both points are 

written by Marx in English, although most of the manuscript is German. Marx was probably 

sitting in the British Museum in London while writing this. The next two paragraphs are 

literal quotes from Marx: 

(1) When a thing is distant from another, the distance is in fact a relation 

between the one thing and the other; but at the same time the distance is 

something different from this relation between the two things. It is a dimension 

of the space, it is some length which may as well express the 

distance of two other things besides those compared. 

(2) If we speak of the distance as a relation between two things, we suppose 

something “intrinsic,” some “property” of the things themselves, which enables 

them to be distant from each other. What is the distance between the 

syllable A and a table? The question would be nonsensical. In speaking 

of the distance of two things, we speak of their difference in space. Thus 

we suppose both of them to be contained in the space, to be points of the 

space. Thus we equalize them as being both existences of the space, and 

only after having them equalized sub specie spatii we distinguish them as 

different points of space. To belong to space is their unity. 

These are interesting arguments worth pondering. Should question 62 show up in the 

exam, this is what you ought to remember. 

Here are some additional points which are not as important as the above food for thought: 

(a) Even in this example of points in space, the relation between the points is only possible 

because they have something in common. This of course resonates with Marx’s argument 

that also the exchange relation between commodities is based on a commonality in these 

commodities. 

(b) How does all this relate to Thugtorious’s [83]? I will not go into the details but give 

just one general observation. Marx is always very careful to investigate the qualities of 

things before looking at their quantities. Modern sciences have forgotten how to deal with 

qualities, everything has been quantified. Thugtorious in his argument also gives too much 

importance to the quantities of things.



Question 63 is 75 in 2007SP, 76 in 2008fa, 80 in 2010fa, 94 in 2011fa, and 92 in 2012fa: 

Question 63 Marx says that the exchange-relations are characterized by an abstraction 

from use-values. But use-values do affect the exchange proportions. If a use-value is in high 

demand compared to supply, then it commands a higher exchange-value. If a competitor 

brings out a better product, the firm’s own product may not sell any more. Can this be 

reconciled with the claim of abstraction from use-value? 

[69] Dange: content A– form 80% My 

answer would be no. Marx’s view that 

exchange-relations are characterized by an 

(As Submitted:) I would answer this 

question no, Marx’s view of exchange- 

relations being set apart by an abstraction 

from use-value does not reconcile with market 

supply and demand. Marx is saying 

abstraction from use-value cannot be reconciled 

with market supply and demand. Marx that the use-value of a product is not taken 

is saying that the use-value of a product is into account when making exchanges. The 

not taken into account when making ex- 

changes. The quantity of the good is the quantity of the good is the only thing taken 

into account–one apple may equal five or- 

only thing taken into account–one apple anges and so that is how much each good 

is worth, having nothing to do with the usevalue 

connected with it. 

may equal five oranges and so that is how 

much each good is worth, having nothing to 

do with the use-value connected with it. 

By looking at market supply and demand, 

I can make the assertion that this is 

By looking at market supply and demand, 

I can make the assertion that this false. The way I see it, I would give you five 

is false. If you were to trade with me, I oranges in exchange for one apple because 

would give you five oranges in exchange for 

one apple because the apple is more valuable 

to me. Therefore, I would say that exchanges 

are based more on consumer preferences 

and desires than pure quantitative 

the apple is more valuable to me. Therefore, 

operations. I would say that exchanges are based more 

on consumer preferences and desires than 

pure quantitative operations. 

Hans: I had to edit your submission. My edited version is shown in the left and your original text in the right 

column. “Characterize” is not the same as “set apart.” Other than that, only fairly small changes were necessary to 

convert your colloquial English into a well readable and clearly written text. 

Message [69] referenced by [70], [71], and [2007SP:17]. Next Message by Dange is [107]. 

[70] Hans: Apples and oranges. Dange, you say in [69] that you are willing to trade 5 

oranges for an apple. If people take you up on this you may lose a lot of money. By the 

way, how many apples do you have at home? I am asking because according to neoclassical 

economics you should be eating so many apples that you have gotten sick and tired of apples 


and any additional apple is not worth to you more than an orange (assuming that the market 

exchange proportion between apples and oranges is roughly one apple for an orange). 

The labor theory of value (i.e., Marx’s theory) does not have to make such assumptions 

because this theory determines exchange by labor content rather than consumer preferences. 

Assume apples and oranges contain the same amount of labor, but people are so crazy about 

apples that they are willing to pay five times more for an apple than for an orange. Then the 

supply will change; labor will be shifted from producing oranges to producing apples. The 

greater supply of apples will decrease their price, and the scarcity of oranges will increase 

theirs, until the prices are equal. In this theory, prices are determined on the production side, 

and consumer preferences only affect quantities produced, but not the long run prices. 


[71] Hans: More apples and oranges. This is my second reply to Dange’s [69]. 

What does Marx’s statement mean that the exchange relation of commodities is characterized 

by an abstraction from their use-values? It means the following. Say you have shoe 

polish and you want diamonds. No problem. You may have to give a lot of tubes of shoe 

polish for one diamond, but in principle it is possible, with the help of the market, to turn 

shoe-polish into diamonds. The market is the great equalizer between use-values. 

This is not only true for individual market participants, but assume that overall demand 

for a certain good rises. Everybody wants a flat-screen TV. Again no problem. The market 

is very good at re-allocating resources where there is great demand. Usually the market will 

be able to supply enough flat-screen TV’s after only a short adjustment period. 

Marx concludes from this that the market exchange-proportions have nothing to do with 

use-values. Use-values may have an impact in the short run, but they don’t in the long run. 

As far as the market is concerned, one use-value is as good as any other. Something that 

is as replaceable as the use-values in a market economy cannot have an impact. (If you are 

holding down a job you are probably able to relate to this.) 


Exam Question 72 is 38 in 1995WI, 47 in 1995ut, 49 in 1996sp, 47 in 1996ut, 46 in 

1997ut, 58 in 1999SP, 60 in 2001fa, 73 in 2004fa, 85 in 2007SP, 85 in 2007fa, 86 in 

2008fa, 93 in 2010fa, 110 in 2011fa, and 108 in 2012fa: 

Exam Question 72 What is value (according to Marx)? 

[558] Xerho: graded A– Value, according to Marx, is determining the abstract labor embedded 

in a commodity. Abstract labor cannot be seen, and comes in different forms (like 

skilled and unskilled). Like adding fractions, it is neccessary to have common denominators. 

Abstract labor is that common denominator that makes it possible to determine value. 

Hans: First you say that value determines abstract labor, then you say that abstract labor determines value. What 

is the connection between value and abstract labor? 


[574] Bubba: graded A Response to Xerho. In response to Xerho [558], let me first try 

the definition of value, quoting the Annotations (please let know if the test answer needs 

more than the following line):


Value is “that social property which makes things exchangeable in a commodity society.” 

Next, not for the trial test answer, I’ll take a shot at the relationship between value and 

abstract labor: 

Abstract labor is what goes into the material to turn it into a commodity. A commodity 

itself is a social construct, raw material plus labor that adds use-value(s). Once it’s part of 

the commodity, it’s value. 

Hans: Imagine the following conversation. Your son asks you: “what is value?” and your answer is “value is that 

social property which makes things exchangeable in a commodity society.” Then your son wants to know: “what is 

that property?” and you elaborate: “the abstract labor content of the commodity”. 

My point here is: “value is congealed abstract labor” is also a possible answer to question 72. 

Message [574] referenced by [579]. Next Message by Bubba is [598]. 

[579] Xerho: What is value, test question response to Bubba. Bubba makes a very good 

point in quoting the annotations in [574] for the definition of value, which is something I 

certainly should have considered; sticking to the text. I failed to realize that many times a 

simple definition is best. I chose to include the sentence following that quoted by Bubba 

in the annotations were it reads, “Value...is not derived from worth, but from abstract social 

labor.” (pg. 34) 

It’s tough to know how far to go in a definition, but I liked how Bubba separated the two, 

and wrote separately about the relationship between value and abstract labor. Thanks for 

clearing that up further. 


[673] Hans: Disentangling value and exchange-value. This question was not on the 

test yesterday and will not be on the test on Monday. But it is something which needs 

clarification in general. Let me begin with a trivial geometric example. 

Think of all the circles in the world. If you take any two circles A and B, then it is either 

possible to place A on top of B so that A completely covers B (i.e., so that B is completely 

hidden by A), or it is not possible. 

If it is possible, then I say “A covers B”. This is a relationship between circles: it can 

only be defined if you have two circles. 

Other things can be done with circles individually. You can compute the area of each 

circle, and its circumference, etc. For this you don’t need more than one circle: each circle 

has a well-defined area and circumference all by itself. 

Thirdly, of course, we know that A covers B if and only if the area of A is greater than or 

equal to the area of B. This fact is not as trivial as it seems because it reduces the relationship 

between the circles to something which each circle has individually. Say circle A lives in 

New York and B in San Francisco. It is no longer necessary for A to fly to San Francisco or 

for B to fly to New York in order to determine whether A covers B or not. They both can 

just measure their area, which is something that each can do without the other present, and 

then they know who covers whom. 

Now think commodities instead of circles, the cover relationship is their exchange value, 

and the area is their value, i.e., the abstract human labor which was used up in the production 

of these commodities. Then you understand what Marx means when he says 


exchange-value itself cannot be anything other than the mere mode of expression, 

“form of appearance,” of some content distinguishable from it. 

The area is the underlying concept; if A covers B it can do so because it has a bigger area 

than B. The cover relationship is the mode of expression, the form of appearance, of the area 

of the circles in the relationship between circles. Somewhere else, Marx says: 

Wheat and iron, so far as they are exchange-values, must therefore be reducible 

to this third. 

I.e., if I only want to know whether circle A covers circle B, and none of their other 

properties (their location, material, color etc), then all I need to know about them is the area 

of each. 

Adolph Wagner wrote a book in which he summarized Marx’s theory with the words 

“the common social substance of exchange-value is labor.” 

I bet that 90 percent of all Marxists would agree. But Marx himself objected vehemently: 

Nowhere do I speak of “the common social substance of exchange-value”; I 

rather say that the exchange-values (exchange-value, without at least two of 

them, does not exist) represent something common to them, which is “quite 

independent of their use-values” [i.e. here their natural form], namely 

“value.” 

Say our circles are knitted coasters. Then Marx simply says here that the process of 

knitting (the living labor) does not generate the cover relationship between the coasters, but 

it generates the area of the coasters. 


Question 73 is 39 in 1995WI, 48 in 1996ut, 47 in 1997ut, 59 in 1999SP, 65 in 2003fa, 74 

in 2004fa, 86 in 2007SP, 86 in 2007fa, 87 in 2008fa, 90 in 2009fa, and 109 in 2012fa: 

Question 73 Use-value is the quality of the commodity, and exchange-value is its quantity. 

Right or wrong? 

[78] Adamwest: I find the above statement to be correct. Marx makes it clear very early 

on that useful things can be analyzed by their quality and quantity. On page 126 he states 

“The usefulness of a thing makes it a use-value”. So assuming that the higher an object’s 

usefulness is in direct correlation to its use-value then we are correct. 

Exchange-value can be looked at as the exchange rate from one item to another. Marx 

presents this idea by saying “Exchange-value appears first of all as the quantitative relation 

the proportion in which use-values of one-kind exchange for use-values of another kind”. 

This shows that the exchange-value is found by looking at the use-value of the two items 

that are to be traded. These use-values show us how many of item “a” is needed for one of 

item “b”, or vice versa. 

Hans: Did you mean to write: “So assuming that the higher an object’s quality is in direct correlation to its usevalue 

then we are correct”? 

Message [78] referenced by [81] and [94]. Next Message by Adamwest is [339].


[81] MK: To elaborate on the comments of Adamwest [78] – and for my own clarification 

– I wish to add a bit. 

If I understand correctly the number of ways in which a thing can be utilized is in fact 

what determines its use-value—and in fact the use-value is what determines exchange value. 

So the exchange value of a given thing can be said to be the proportion in which a given 

number of use-values of one thing that can be exchanged for a given number of use-values 

of another thing. 

So the question reads, “Use-value is the quality of the commodity, and exchange-value is 

its quantity. Right or wrong?” 

If in fact we take “quality” as a representation of “qualities” as in ‘characteristics’ of the 

thing, this seems correct. But I think this is a little confusing (perhaps because I am overanalyzing 

or just plain do not understand the material) because it implies in the word quality 

that we are assessing the very quality of a thing, and I don’t believe this is the correct usage 

of the word quality as Marx intended. It seems that qualities rather is the very charateristics 

of the thing that determines the use-value. Quality, as in how well a particular item was 

or is made seems to imply that that particular item, though it has the same use-value as its 

seemingly identical counterpart, is of better quality. And this suggestion implies that the 

particular item required more, or more skilled, or greater amounts of labor. 

For example—if a t-shirt at store X would sell for $3.00, and upon assessment one determined 

that the t-shirt was made of a rather thin fabric that tends to lose its shape over time, 

and perhaps was more prone to tear than its counterpart available at store Y for $8.00. (The 

store Y t-shirt was made of a thicker fabric that resisted tearing and held shape well.) 

So on the cuff these t-shirts seem to have identical use-value, or qualities, or utility. But 

their quality is not identical. 

Perhaps I am barking up the wrong tree and someone can easily expel my confusion. 

Exchange value is the form of appearance. (I think.) Because value in and of itself 

is something that we can not directly observe, we cannot see it or touch it, its form of 

appearence is in the exchange value. Exchange value is then of course a measurable quantity 

for any given use value. So I agree that exchange value is in fact quantity. Or at least 

expresses itself by means of quantity. 

Hans: Very thoughtful. You seem to say that the true quality of the product is often not apparent when it lies on 

the store shelves. Therefore people use the price to judge quality. 

But you are right, there are two meanings of the word “quality”, it can mean the properties in general, or how 

well something is done. Marx uses it in the first meaning, not the second. With respect to the question at hand you 

are therefore indeed barking up the wrong tree. 


[84] Bob: I am finding a few differences and similarities in this discussion. Of course 

we know the use-value and exchange-values are the two main aspects to keep in mind when 

referring to commodities. To a certain extent the use-value can be seen as the quality of a 

commodity, but early in the annotations we read that the use-value of a commodity is the 

menu of possible uses of the commodity. I would interpret this to not be referring to the 


use-value as a quality, although I can see how it could be. In order to really define what usevalue 

is I would have to go with the simplest explanation. The use-value is the usefulness of 

the commodity. 

As for the exchange-value, I read in the annotations that Marx makes some claims in his 

introductions. He claims that the exchange-value of a commodity cannot be derived from 

its use-value. A commodity has a second quality, separate from use-values, this then allows 

trade to occur. I would agree with the question being right, but to some extent there needs to 

be much more explanation to fully understand use-values as quality and exchange value as 

quantity. 


[89] Michael: Comments on Bob’s Response to Q 73. Bob, 

I think you are on the right track. Let me simply make some comments that expand on 

what you’ve said. 

In the second paragraph you note: “He claims that the exchange-value of a commodity 

cannot be derived from its use-value.” Right, the reason why is that the exchange value of 

commodity B may change even as the menu of uses of B is constant. For example, take 

gasoline. The menu of uses of gasoline has remained essentially fixed over the last few 

years, but the exchange value hasn’t (assume we live in a barter economy so that products 

are directly traded for other products. We haven’t talked about money yet; that’s to come). 

A few years ago, perhaps you could have exchanged a gallon of gasoline for one-half bushel 

of tomatoes. Today maybe you could get a full bushel of tomatoes for one gallon of gas. 

In order for exchange-value to be derivable from use-value we would need to be able to say 

exactly what the exchange value(s) would be for any given use-value, yet the above example 

shows that we can’t generally do that. 

Also in the second paragraph, you say: “A comodity has a second quality, seperate from 

use-values, this then allows trade to occur.” The fact that commodities are traded means that 

they must in some way be comparable. How do you decide how many apples you will require 

to part with your bushel of oranges? You must find a basis from which to compare apples 

and oranges. As use-values they are not comparable (3 apples are not unambiguously better 

than 4 oranges, right?). Marx says that this common thing they have is that they are products 

of human labor (if they are cultivated). So (a special type of) human labor is the thing on 

which we base our comparison; particulary, how much of it there is in the commodities 

being compared. Since value is the term Marx uses for this quantity of labor, we say that 

what commodities have in common is value. Now, we wouldn’t compare the amount of 

labor we ourselves put into the bushel of apples against the amount of labor someone else 

put into some quantity of oranges. Instead the comparison is between the usual amount of 

labor time needed for a bushel of apples and the usual amount of labor time needed for some 

fixed quantity of oranges. (Note: this labor time is measured in units of what you might call 

essential labor, which is a technical simplification–see Marx’s discussion.) 


[94] Hans: Starting out with the wrong foot. The answer is: “Wrong”. Quality and 

quantity are natural attributes of every product, but use-value and exchange-value are attributes 

only in a very specific kind of society.


Perhaps one can say that for use-value the quality of the product is the main aspect (but 

the quantity also plays a role), and for the exchange-value it is the other way around. This is 

probably why the earlier answers to this question were so reluctant to say that the formulation 

in the question is incorrect. 

But I see a development towards the better answer. Adamwest [78] was the boldest in his 

assertion that the question should be answered with “correct,” MK [81] is much less certain, 

and Bob [84] says that he is finding a few differences and needs more explanation, which 

seems to be a polite way of saying that he disagrees. 

Message [94] referenced by [2007SP:20], [2008fa:475], and [2012fa:32]. Next Message by Hans is [97]. 

Multiple Choice Question 75 is 502 in 1999SP, 62 in 2000fa, 88 in 2007fa, and 91 in 

2009fa: 

Multiple Choice Question 75 Which of the following family relations best correspond to 

the relation between value, use-value, and exchange-value? 

(a) If you are value, use-value is your daughter and exchange-value your son. 

(b) If you are value, use-value is your brother and exchange-value your son. 

(c) If you are value, use-value is your father and exchange-value your son. 

(d) If you are value, use-value is your daughter and exchange-value your granddaughter. 

[726] MK: (d) 

Hans: (d) is wrong. Value, as Marx uses the term, is the congealed abstract labor in the commodity, which 

manifests itself in the commodity’s exchange-value. Value is not the general concept from which use-value and 

exchange-value are somehow derived. Therefore I did not give credit for answers (a) and (d). 

Answer (c) makes more sense: value is the son of use-value because use-value is necessary for something 

to have value; and exchange-value is the son of value because exchange-value is the social form in which value 

manifests itself. But the problem here is that this hierarchy suggests that value and therefore also exchange-value 

derive from use-value, which they don’t. It is an important insight at the beginning of Capital that value and 

exchange-value cannot be derived from use-value. Therefore I gave only partial credit for answer (c). 

Answer (b) is the preferred answer which received full credit: It shows that the relationship between value and 

use-value lies in a different dimension and is, indeed, much more tenuous, than that between value and exchangevalue. 


Question 76 is 55 in 1997sp, 49 in 1997ut, 65 in 2002fa, 67 in 2003fa, 77 in 2004fa, 89 

in 2007SP, 89 in 2007fa, 89 in 2008fa, 92 in 2009fa, 96 in 2010fa, 115 in 2011fa, and 

113 in 2012fa: 

Question 76 Why is labor measured here by labor-time, and not by counting how many 

movements were made, or by the drops of sweat of the laborer, or by the discomfort of the 

laborer? 

[110] BonzoIsGod: graded B Measurement of labor. Marx measures labor by time for 

not only the simplicity, but also the equality. Using time as the standard of measurement 

makes things easily defined. The equality aspect comes with the reality of differences in 

skill levels, pace of work, etc., of different employees. Someone that was teaching a class 

for 8 hours probably did not exert as much physical energy as a worker on a manufacturing 

floor. Therefore, examining each field of work separately by drops of sweat or movements 


made poses an inequality in labor forces. Simply saying that Joe taught for 8 hours and Tom 

installed parts for 8 hours makes the equation an equal one. 

Message [110] referenced by [111]. Next Message by BonzoIsGod is [214]. 

[111] Hans: Beware of the pitfalls. BonzoIsGod’s [110] sounds as if the measurement of 

the quantity of labor that determines the quantity of value of a commodity was consciously 

decided by Marx himself according to some socially fair and useful principles. 

Marx is not deciding how to measure labor time in a fair society. Marx is researching 

how the quantity of labor is measured in the relations of production of today’s far-from-fair 

capitalism. Das Kapital is not a blueprint for a better society but an analysis of capitalism. 

This will become much clearer once we get past the first three chapters, once we get from 

the deceptive sphere of the market into production itself. But it is not possible to understand 

the book if you think it is about socialism. 

You have been warned. If someone else brings a contribution in the future in which they 

think that Capital is a blueprint for a better society, their grade will be penalized. 

Message [111] referenced by [119], [121], [142], [1863], and [2007SP:45]. Next Message by Hans is [113]. 

[119] Claire: Marx measures labor in 

time because he measures total labor. To- 

tal labor is all labor that went into the product, 

including the labor of the materials, ma- 

chine equipment, and the worker. If we 

(As Submitted:) The reason that Marx 

measures the labor in time is because labor 

had a simple work place where no machines is measured in total labor. The total labor is 

what went into the product as far as the la- 

or materials were used but the work was 

solely dependent on the worker’s performance, 

then I believe there would be a difbor 

of the materials, machine equipment and 

ferent payment plan. 

However, we do not live in a simple la- 

the worker. If we had a simple work place 

where no machines or materials were used 

but the work was solely dependent on the 

worker’s performance, than I believe there 

would be a different payment plan. 

However, we do not live in a simple labor 

environment and because work depends not 

bor environment and because work depends only how much the workder produces but 

not only how much the worker produces but 

also how the machines and materials pro- 

also how the machines and materials used 

duce, Marx measures the quantity of labor produce, Marx measures the quantity of la- 

by labor-time. 

bor by labor-time. 

Hans: I edited your text with the help of a colleague who teaches writing; your original is in the right column. 

We are not talking here about a “payment plan.” Marx does not decide how to measure labor based on what is 

appropriate to the situation; please read [111] about this, and the same thing reformulated in [121]. 

Furthermore, the concept of total labor does not measure the labor performed by the machinery, but only the 

labor that went into producing that part of the machinery that is worn out during the production process. The 

operation of the machine is not called “labor”. 

Next Message by Claire is [120].


[121] Hans: Let me say it again. Here is another attempt to make the same argument I 

already tried in [111]: 

The question reads: “Why is labor measured here by labor-time ...”, not: “Why does 

Marx measure labor by labor-time.” With good reason. 

Das Kapital is a theory of capitalism. Marx is not the one who is doing the measuring. 

Marx thinks that in the capitalist market, prices depend on labor content, this labor content 

being measured by time. Question 76 is therefore asking: what arguments, if any, did Marx 

bring, or what arguments can you bring in favor of Marx’s thesis, that in the labor theory of 

value the quantity of labor is measured by time and not by the other alternatives given in the 

question? 


Question 77 is 57 in 1997WI, 57 in 1997sp, 63 in 1999SP, 65 in 2001fa, 66 in 2002fa, 68 

in 2003fa, 78 in 2004fa, 90 in 2007SP, 90 in 2007fa, 92 in 2008SP, 90 in 2008fa, 93 in 


Question 77 Is it a character flaw to be lazy in an exploitive system? 

[99] ADHH: graded A I do not think that being lazy in an exploitive system is necessarily 

a character flaw. In most jobs, the employee makes a standard hourly wage. Regardless 

of how hard he or she works or doesn’t work, there is no increase or decrease in his or 

her wage. For example, in a small office situation, an employee is hired to perform specific 

tasks. Once this employee has mastered those tasks, the boss gives that employee more to do 

and expects a higher level of output without any increase in wage. The harder the employee 

works, the more work they are given to do and expected to get done in this system without an 

increase in monetary rewards. The increased workload benefits the owners of the company 

while increasing the stress level and decreasing the well-being of the employee. Is that a fair 

trade? I don’t think so. If a person is not looking for advancement, or if there is nowhere to 

go and hard work is not rewarded, why work harder? 

Message [99] referenced by [101], [143], [186], [2007SP:43], and [2007SP:69]. Next Message by ADHH is [102]. 

[101] Thugtorious: (graded A) In response to ADHH’s answer [99], I think that the flaw 

lies within the explanation of the answer. First off, I think that we need to aggregate the idea 

of “character flaw,” not as in each person, but as a species in its entirety. Is it a character 

flaw of human beings to be lazy in an exploitative system? And, I think that it is not a flaw 

of humans, but a flaw of the system itself. Erich Fromm in “Marx’s Concept of Man” argues 

that Marx believed that humankind “found him/herself” in production. Commodities 

are the product of production, and workers leave a part of themselves in that commodity 

vis-à-vis production. However, within capitalistic production, “the objects of his own work 

become alien beings, and eventually rule of him, become powers independent of the producer. 

’The laborer exists for the process of production, and not the process of production 

for the laborer’.” (Fromm, 1994, p. 48). Since the product of production is stripped away 

from the laborer, they are unable to experience the true satisfaction and realization of what 

they created. From this, the laborer does not find anymore joy in production; they see the 

commodities produced and the process itself as “alien” to them. So if anything, laziness is 

a byproduct of capitalistic production. Further more, I think that Marx would’ve argued that 


monetary incentives for efficiency are a symptom of this ill-fated system. Instead of laborers 

finding joy and growth within production, they are duped into over-valuing money and jaded 

towards production. That is the flaw as I see it within the answer. Not that you were wrong 

in your explanation, but the focus on monetary incentives is indicative of the “character” 

flaw itself. Marx wanted people to value production itself, to enjoy creating something from 

the world around them and grow from that experience. He did not want people to find joy 

purely in accumulating “things,” including money. 


[102] ADHH: (graded A weight 50%) In response to Thugtorious [101]: 

Regardless of how Marx wanted people to feel or act, wanting to be rewarded monetarily 

for time spent on behalf of a company is not a character flaw. Working at a job where you 

don’t “value the production itself” or where you aren’t “creating something from the world 

around you” is also not a character flaw. The issue is, if a person does not put in 100% effort 

all the time at an exploitive company, is that a character flaw? The answer is still no. 

Message [102] referenced by [103]. Next Message by ADHH is [387]. 

[103] Thugtorious: (graded A) I definitely see where ADHH [102] is coming from when 

responding to this question. However, in consideration of Marxian thought, I think that 

capitalistic production is somewhat of a contradiction, and that is where the flaw is found. 

Laborers exert time, energy, and overall themselves into the productive process but are only 

rewarded with a percentage of what they created. And, they do not benefit emotionally, 

spiritually, and/or mentally for the menial task of repetitive production. Why is this the 

case? Because another individual wants to be paid for owning the means of production and 

does so through the exploitation of the laborer. 

I am not saying that it is a character flaw to want compensation for your efforts. That 

is exactly what Marx is arguing: laborers should receive the fruits of their labor. However, 

within capitalistic production, workers don’t see this contradiction and operate as if there 

were no opposing forces at all. They receive their pay check, not in the form of what they 

created, but in the form of species (money) that has only the “use-value” created by the 

society that they live in: a medium of exchange. The flaw is not intrinsic in human nature, 

but is created by the contradiction of capitalistic production vis-à-vis the exploitation of the 

laborer and ownership of the means of production. 

In summary, it is not a character flaw of humans to be lazy in an exploitative system, but 

a symptom of the ills within the system as a whole. 

Next Message by Thugtorious is [114]. 

[143] McDugall: graded C+ weight 50% A person taking advantage of any system to 

benefit only themselves is a character flaw. The goal of the community is to help everyone 

and reward everyone fairly. When such a system is in place, the system needs everyone to 

work fairly and to the best of their ability to help maintain the equality. A character flaw 

hurts the community when the flaw is consciously expressed to further the personal goals of 

the individual. Marx would consider such activity a character flaw. 

Hans: Do these rules also apply to a social order which does not have the goal to help everyone and reward 

everyone fairly, but one which systematically transfers wealth from those who produce it to an elite class which 

controls the means of production? 

Your contribution ignores the lively earlier discussion about this topic, starting with [99].



[145] Thugtorious: (graded A) Character Flaw and McDugall’s Answer. There has 

already been a little discussion of this, but I think that McDugall’s response is interesting. 

He/she says that we must all do our part to keep the system at somewhat of a homeostasis 

or balance, and that Marx would view a lazy worker as having a character flaw of laziness. 

However, within the capitalistic mode of production, Marx sees that there is no equality 

whatsoever. That is one of the largest contradictions, if not the largest contradiction of our 

day: laborers do all of the work, but do not own the means of production or receive the 

worth of what they create. Somebody else, either by a ruthless competitive scheme or divine 

luck of birth, owns the means of production and reaps the benefits of profit merely from 

ownership. There is no equality. 

Now, as for laziness, I said it before: it is a flaw of the system itself. A human’s natural 

propensity is to be creative and industrious. However, capitalism takes away any incentive to 

produce or be creative. The laborers are torn away from the products they create. I don’t want 

to get too deep into alienation, but the products and production itself should help humans 

become better people and to develop as a race. Unfortunately, in capitalism, the focus is not 

on the laborer, or even the products that they create, but on the money accumulated by the 

capitalists. 


[147] Jerm: In an exploitive system it is possible for a worker to be exploited whether 

or not he knows it. Exploitation works much better if those who are being exploited are not 

aware that they are being exploited. If a person is aware that they are being exploited, it is 

much easier for them to not work as hard and to become lazy, in which case, the laziness 

would be a character flaw of the employer. In a capitalist system, the whole economy is 

based on exploitation. Therefore, it cannot be blamed on an individual or a single company. 

The capitalist society would not function without exploitation because the greedy capitalist 

must exploit others in order to increase his production and profit. 

It is a character flaw of the employee to be lazy if the person knows they are being 

exploited. In a capitalist system, however, it is not a character flaw to be lazy because, even 

if we are exploited, we still participate in the system and help to make it function. 

Hans: The question whether the employee knows that he or she is exploited is certainly relevant here, and you are 

the only one who has pointed this out. You seem to have excellent thoughts, but I implore you to explain yourself 

better. What you are saying is so deep and unusual that your audience otherwise just won’t get it. 


[186] TriPod: I don’t think it is a character flaw to be lazy in an exploitive system. Most 

people are hired and paid a wage no matter what their production is. If you allow yourself 

to be exploited and work above and beyond the call of duty it is unlikely that you will be 

given a raise so why would you work harder. In our company we have people who perform 

and people who don’t perform but no matter what their level of production we still get paid 

the same. I go to work with the understanding that no matter what my level of production 

is I will still get paid the same, again why work harder. If I work harder, then I will allow 

myself to be exploited because no matter what my level of production, I am not getting paid 

more. I think it is the system that is flawed. We can fix the system by paying employees 

what they deserve based on production. It is not a character flaw because employees like I 


are just participating in the system that is set up rather than allowing the system to exploit 

us. 

Hans: Your answer is very similar to ADHH’s [99]. This hurt your grade, because I only give credit for things 

which were not already said. 


[230] COMMI: I have to disagree with what Tripod said in [186] about laziness in an 

exploitive system. He says that if you increase your marginal product of labor you will not 

receive an increase in pay. I have experienced the opposite at my job. Over the last 3 years 

at my job I have been promoted three times and nearly doubled my salary. I know this is 

a consequence of the hard work that I have done. If I would have had the attitude of doing 

just enough to get by I would be in the same position I was three years ago and I would be 

making the same amount of money. I can’t see how being lazy could be a positive attribute 

to a person’s character. Laziness has and always will be a character flaw. By being lazy you 

exploit yourself. 

Next Message by COMMI is [454]. 

[845] Bboarder: After re-reading the installments I believe that it is the system that is 

flawed more than a specific individual. If two people are hired at the same wage and to do 

the same thing, they will be paid the same no matter what their production is. Because this 

situation exists it does not promote the laborer to excel in his position. Therefore natural 

tendency causes him or her to do the least amount of work possible to get by. The reason the 

laborer does this is as follows in quotes “Since the product of production is stripped away 

from the laborer, they are unable to experience the true satisfaction and realization of what 

they created. From this, the laborer does not find any more joy in production; they see the 

commodities produced and the process itself as ‘alien’ to them.” The alienation from this 

process is more of a problem of the exploited system than it is a character flaw. Therefore 

I believe it is the system that is flawed more than it is an individual. The biggest problem 

would be trying to change this exploitation of laborers. You stated in [2004fa:30] “We all 

have the responsibility to get rid of the system. We cannot just wait for the capitalist to 

become less greedy.” How do we get rid of the system is a difficult question that probably 

can’t be answered within this question. 

Next Message by Bboarder is [850]. 

[887] Will: graded A– It is not a character flaw in an exploitive system to be lazy because 

if the value of labor is determined by the amount of labor spent in the production of a commodity, 

the more lazy and slow a laborer may be, the more the commodity he is producing 

will be worth. This is because of the more time it took in the production of that commodity. 

Hans: This is only true if all workers are slow at the same time. This combination of character flaws is called class 

struggle. You seem to have recognized this fact in class, when you wrote: 

No, it is not because if a laborer is lazy in an exploitive system it should be recognized that he 

is not producing up to the average production of a worker and therefore should lose his job. 

This in effect should be recognized by the producers and therefore action should be taken in 

order to rid the system of inefficient workers. 

Both answers are a good attempt to look at the issue scientifically. 

Next Message by Will is [889]. 

[897] Tomek: According to Marx’s findings, workers’ commodities can be competitive 

only in case he spends no more than the socially necessary labor-time on producing them. 

For to stay competitive, a worker’s labor has to be at least as effective, as every other average


worker’s in the chosen society. The exploitive system is built on an assumption that that 

there are no irreplaceable people, it is the type of society, where the criteria for measuring 

the value of the personality is the effectiveness of his/her labor. For to be competitive in 

the capitalistic society, a person has to put his/her efforts to make the time he/she needs for 

producing commodities as close to the socially necessary labor-time, as possible, as it is the 

only way to survive there. 

It is obvious, that in a situation where lots of identical commodities are offered, the one, 

who is able to produce more of them, is usually considered to be more skillful, thus he/she 

gets more money, better working conditions and social approval. Those, whose pace of 

working is low, are not competitive with the other workers, thus they are those who do not 

survive in the exploitive society. 

Thus, as we can see, the lazy workers have little chance of surviving in the exploitive 

society. Their pace of working is slower than the socially approved and adequate one, thus 

they get less reward for their labor. In the exploitive society being lazy is not a character flaw, 

as those, who are lazy, usually do not survive there, as the compensation they get for their 

work is smaller than the average one, which is usually too small for to allow their survival. 

Hans: Good point. For the working class, it is impossible to be lazy in this system. Only the rich can be lazy. 

Next Message by Tomek is [900]. 

[917] Shrek: It is not a character flaw to be lazy in an exploitive system. If you are using 

exploitation, you don’t want your subjects to be aware of it. If an employee knows that they 

are being exploited they will work only sufficient enough to not be fired. The value of the 

object produced does not increase with increased effort in production. With increased effort 

you only increase your value of production, not the products. So if you want to be lazy, you 

reap the reward of your effort. 

Hans: The value of the products produced does increase with your increased efforts, but your compensation does 

not, only the profits of your exploiter. 

Question 80 is 68 in 2002fa, 72 in 2003fa, 82 in 2004fa, 93 in 2007SP, 95 in 2008SP, 93 

in 2008fa, 100 in 2010fa, and 118 in 2012fa: 

Question 80 Imagine you were studying Marxism together with a friend, and the friend said 

to you: Doesn’t the labor theory of value imply that, the more lazy and inept the laborer, the 

more valuable his commodity would be? How would you answer your friend? 

[82] Nazgul: graded A A basic definition of the labor theory of value would state that 

an exchangeable good or service has value in the amount of labor required to produce it, 

thus giving some individuals the impression that laziness would increase the value of ones 

commodity. Marx, however, leaves no such impression. 

Marx makes the clarification in Capital that “...the labour that forms the substance of 

value is equal human labour, the expenditure of equal human labour power.” Here Marx 

again puts the focus on society not the individual. There is no way everyone works at the 

same intensity, knowing this and accepting it, adjustments can be made. 

In taking the “socially average unit of labour power” it would not be advantageous to a 

worker to be lazy or inept, the product of their labour is valued the same. 


Hans: These adjustments are not made because the participants in a commodity society accept the fact that not 

everybody can work with the same intensity. Rather, these adjustments are made automatically by the market: the 

buyer only sees the use-value of the product and does not know whether it was produced by a faster or slower 

worker. If it is the same use-value it must have the same value. 

Message [82] referenced by [85] and [2007SP:339]. Next Message by Nazgul is [240]. 

[85] Gza: (graded A) This is actually in response to Nazgul’s answer [82]. Marx seems 

to admit that there is a dilemma with the “lazy worker,” and he also seems to provide two 

alternatives for analyzing the value of labor. One of Marx’s analyses does not solve the 

problem of the “lazy worker” while his second analysis does. Marx’s first analysis begins 

with the question of “value.” He says “a useful article has commodity value only because 

human labor in the abstract is objectified or materialized in it.” This means that labor is 

treated just like articles in the market place in that articles can be exchanged for other goods 

because articles have value in the sense that they use up resources from society (among other 

things). Labor, like articles also uses up society’s supply of abstract labor. Marx suggests 

that the amount of goods that one can get from an article is dependent upon the amount of 

labor that went into the production of the article, or “how much labor was congealed in it” 

(Hans). This not only takes the direct labor of producing the article, but all other labor that 

is, or can be, marginalized. The value of the article is in the total labor that went into its 

production such as the time, the work the labor in making the tools, the resource gathering 

to make the tools; in a way it can become infinitely regressive in a sense, but it is over the 

“life time” (Hans), which suggests some limits although I am not sure to what extent. 

Marx directly poses the problem of the “lazy worker” from the above analysis by stating 

that “it might seem that the value of a commodity is determined by the amount of labor spent 

in its production, the more lazy and inept the laborer, the more valuable his commodity” 

(Marx 129). From this Marx shifts into the concept of average labor to get out of the “lazy 

worker” dilemma. He suggests that “the individual commodity counts here generally as 

an average of its kind” meaning that labor time and the commodity’s use-value are to be 

looked at on the average. The majority of articles will contain the socially necessary labor 

time and as long as use-values are equal, the market will will treat various articles the same. 

The solution to the “lazy worker” is that he will have to “compete” with “average” workers 

producing identical articles, so he therefore cannot demand more because it took him longer. 

Even resorting back to Marx’s first value observational analysis, where value is determined 

in the total labor that goes into an article, it makes sense that if it takes me 8 hours 

to make a hat, I want to demand more than if it only took me 2 hours. I think Marx is 

using common sense in his analysis. However, within a market of homogeneous labor and 

products through human labor-power, there can only be one price. Therefore, Marx has to 

incorporate the “average” laborer into the value of exchangeability. 


Question 81 is 54 in 1997WI, 53 in 1997ut, 68 in 2001fa, 96 in 2008SP, and 120 in 2011fa: 

Question 81 How can labor-time be the measure of value, of a social quantity, if it seems 

the private matter of the producer whether he or she spends much or little time, and others 

may not even know?


[1572] Hans: New Homework Assignments. This is one of the homework questions assigned 

over the Thanksgiving weekend and the Monday after. Answers are accepted starting 

right now until Tuesday morning, November 29, at 3 am. Here is the list of all the homework 

questions assigned until Tuesday morning 3 am: 

(81), (117), (129), (185), 375, 377, 590, 601 

Those in parentheses are not in the Annotations, but you can see their text in [1571] and 

my next two emails. All these are regular homework question, not extra credit assignments. 

I am adding these assignments to those in the syllabus so that class participants who have 

not yet submitted enough homework answers can catch up. As with all other assignments, 

you can only get credit for one graded submission in this list of questions. I will announce 

another assignment for the week December 5-8. 


[1644] Sparrow: Labor-time is measured as a social quantity because the value is based 

on the time that is socially necessary to produce the item. This is in spite of the fact that 

society may not be certain on the amount of time spent laboring on this particular item. 

The society will still know the amount of labor-time required to produce the commodity, 

regardless of the actual labor-time spent by the producer. 

For example, the socially necessary labor-time for a watch will be the same regardless if it 

is made by hand or by using an assembly line with machinery. The individual who made the 

watch by hand will not be rewarded for his extra efforts because society will only recognize 

the socially necessary labor-time to produce the watch. 

Final Grading Note by Hans: Your selection of questions to answer, throughout the Semester, was heavily 

weighted towards chapter One issues. 

Message [1644] referenced by [1681] and [1810]. Next Message by Sparrow is [1711]. 

[1681] McDugall: (graded C+) Labor-time is the amount of time, on average, it takes 

for anyone in society to produce one item. It is measured as a social quantity because it 

is the amount of time socially necessary to produce an item. Labor-time is independent of 

the technology / methodology used to produce the item. Any extra effort into producing the 

item will not be rewarded, the user does not see the amount of time the producer puts into 

the object. Society only recognizes the amount necessary to produce an item, they will only 

pay for the labor-time. 

Hans: The socially necessary labor-time certainly depends on technology. I think you mean to say as in [1644] 

that someone who uses an outdated production method will not be rewarded for this. Indeed I do not see anything 

in your answer that was not said in [1644]. 


[1707] Phatteus: Labor-time can be the measure of value or of a “social” quantity, because 

it is based on the amount of time socially necessary to produce an item. When a 

commodity is placed in the market and its value is determined, it is determined by society. 

Most everyone in society, in one way or another has used human labor power to produce 

something. Since this is the base for which values are determined, and due to everyone 

having at one time or another used human labor power to produce something (it may not be 

to produce a commodity but could be a “commodity” at home, for example), the “average” 

necessary labor time can be judged by society. Thus it does not matter to society whether 

the producer has spent more or less time producing. 


Hans: You see the problem: how does society know the labor-time hidden away in private factories? But your 

answer is unconvincing. 

Message [1707] referenced by [1810]. Next Message by Phatteus is [1734]. 

[1735] Picard: graded C+ As all the other posts have noted, labor-time can be a measure 

of value in a social quantity. This is so because it is based on the socially necessary time 

to produce a commodity. Wether a producer chooses to spend more time than is socially 

necessary does not affect the socially necessary time. If a computer is socially accepted as 

taking one hour to build and a man builds one in 6 hours it does not increase the value of 

the computer he built because society will not pay more than what it knows to be acceptable 

(one hour). 

Hans: When you go shopping, some things definitely look like good deals and others don’t. But I doubt that the 

consumers make this comparison based on labor-time. How many dollars is one hour anyway? 

Next Message by Picard is [1837]. 

[1810] Hans: Actions speak louder than words. Sparrow answered half of the question 

in [1644]: value is not determined by the individual’s labor time but by the socially necessary 

labor-time. All other submissions just repeated this. But how does society know what the 

average labor time is to produce a certain article? Phatteus in [1707] ventured the thought 

that everybody in society has worked, therefore they know how much labor goes into the 

things. Such an argument leaves me utterly unconvinced. 

The answer lies not in what people know but what people do. Assume someone has 

found a way to make widgets in half the labor-time needed by others, and this producer is 

not telling anyone, this new production method is a big secret. 

Does this mean that for all practical purposes this new production method does not exist 

and the value of widgets is still the old level? No, because of the following. If this widget 

innovator is profit seeking, then it is in his interest to exploit the market price of widgets 

which is very favorable for him and produce more widgets than previously. This will drive 

the price of the widgets down. Other producers will wonder: how can this firm sell widgets 

at a price which is below my cost? Eventually they will figure out what is going on. 

This is the mechanism at work which I described in [966] with the metaphor that society 

is a big photo camera which constructs an image of the hidden labor contents in the exchange 

relations between the commodities. 


Question 83 is 96 in 2007SP, 98 in 2008SP, 96 in 2008fa, and 103 in 2010fa: 

Question 83 The value of the product is determined by the socially necessary labor-time. 

What are the implications of this for a capitalist supervising his employees? 

[98] Geo: graded A The implications for determining the value of the product by the socially 

necessary labor-time for a capitalist supervisor is: that if the processes required to 

assemble or obtain the good are particularly time-consuming then the value of the product 

will be high. But costs are high as well. If the value of the product is high to society and 

the capitalist supervisor is aware of this, then he can work to exploit his workers to either 

be more efficient with their efforts such that he can gain a higher return, or he can require 

them to work longer but simply pay them lower wages. This allows the capitalist superviser


to produce the good for less than the socially necessary labor-time but then exchange the 

good according to its socially accepted value. Thus creating personal benefit or profit. The 

capitalist supervisor can do this until society becomes aware that the necessary time to produce 

the good is less than before and therefore the good has less value. There could be a lag 

between the time when the capitalist exploits his/her worker or simply increases their productivity 

and when the society recognizes this change, allowing the capitalist to benefit form 

the lag. It slowly pushes the capitalist into further mass production methods so that he/she 

can benefit from the lag in the time it takes him/her to exploit the system and the time it takes 

society to recognize this fact. It is a cycle. Until a good is mass produced at lower and lower 

social time to the point where society is saturated or the good is depleted. During this cycle 

the capitalist goal becomes one of increasing productivity faster than society recognizes the 

change in socially necessary time. 

Hans: Interesting theory. However Marx explains profits differently. 

Message [98] referenced by [100]. Next Message by Geo is [263]. 

[100] Thugtorious: (graded A) Response to Geo. I think Geo is on the right track with 

this response [98]. However, the question itself contains many different aspects of Marx’s 

doctrine; some of which we have yet to experience within this class. Geo is correct in 

saying that a supervisor, within capitalistic production, has two options if he wants to add 

to his profits vis-à-vis the laborer: 1) Increase the work day, and/or 2) increase the intensity 

of work. Marx argued, as with Smith and other free market economists, wages would be 

paid out at the market clearing level: subsistence level. Due to an ever increasing number of 

workers in the workforce, a “reserve army of the unemployed” would amass, and they would 

bid the wages down to subsistence. The difference between the subsistence wage and the 

value of the commodity is looked at as surplus value. Being that capital is only the product 

of past labor, exploited labor is the only way of obtaining profits from production. That is 

my understanding of the argument thus far. I might be jumping too far ahead in Kapital, and 

I might have this argument completely wrong. So, the implications for a capitalist supervisor 

are to crack the proverbial whip and exploit his employees. If they cannot stand the strain or 

intensity of production, they are easily replaceable. 

So, back to Geo’s answer. I do not necessarily follow when you say: “The capitalist 

supervisor can do this until society becomes aware that the necessary time to produce the 

good is less than before and therefore of less value.” I do not know if you are referring to 

the concept of “class consciousness” or some other form of knowledge that will be gained 

by the consumers. In my opinion, being the case that capitalists have a vice-like grip on 

the means of production, this “cycle” really never turns in favor of the worker. The CEO’s 

and other rich individuals keep accumulating gross amounts of money, while millions of 

people still pay for products that are valued in the market well above their social necessary 

labor time. Maybe I am missing a crucial part of the argument, but I do not see how society 

will somehow “learn” anything more than they already know (which is that capitalists are 

making money from production), and then act upon this knowledge to change the status quo. 

Unless, you are alluding to “class consciousness,” of which I am not well versed. 

Hans: You are describing the essence of Marx’s explanation of exploitation. This will be done in much more detail 

later in volume One of Capital, but this is something that needs to be said several times in different words. 



[158] Mjk: The implications of this for a capitalist supervising his or her employees: 

accordingly, Marx looked into this situation and came up with two effective things these are 

(1) the Lobar-power used, which means “skill and intensity” and (2) the technology process. 

All people would have seen that the labor-power used and technology have penetrated 

into the main conceptual area of socially necessary labor-time if you have gone through 

what Marx should be talking about in his time. 

In fact, concerning about the labor-power-used each and every one knows that every 

employee works hard to receive his or her paycheck and firm works to gain profit. Under 

this situation, regarding labor-power, there are different labor-powers that are not equal, and 

also not every person has the same talents, skills, and has more effort. It should be in this 

format, labor-power use that works hard to produce twice as fast as the average also produces 

twice as much as value. 

Based on this technology, the more better this technology, the more easier work to be 

done, and more profits should be gained. This production method is the socially normal one 

which is prevalent up to date. The higher technology, the betterment the economy situation. 

Finally, These are the two implications that most supervisors should have in their working 

environmental backgrounds. In this case, the value of production is required to promotion 

the socially necessary labor-time. 

Message [158] referenced by [156]. Next Message by Mjk is [283]. 

Question 84 is 42 in 1995WI, 51 in 1995ut, 53 in 1996sp, 51 in 1996ut, 60 in 1998WI, 66 

in 1999SP, 70 in 2001fa, 97 in 2007SP, 97 in 2008fa, 100 in 2009fa, 104 in 2010fa, and 

123 in 2011fa: 

Question 84 The value of a commodity does not increase if it is made by a slow or inept 

laborer. Explain carefully why not. Whose decision is it to keep the value of the output of a 

slow worker below the time actually used for its production? How is it enforced? 

[1871] Bubba: graded C+ Socially Necessary. The “socially necessary” standard is easier 

to see when we look at the exchange from the buyer’s perspective: 

When the buyer goes to the market, he knows the value of the commodity he intends to 

trade for the use-value he needs. The value of the product he buys is invisible: all he sees is 

the use-value he needs. Therefore, the commodity he seeks to buy can have any number of 

hours put into it, but the buyer ends up paying for only the minimum number of hours needed 

to produce the use-value. Anything else is superfluous and, therefore, does not contribute to 

the value of the commodity. 

Continuing this example, the capitalist is the one enforcing a production rate among his 

laborers. He will rationally do all he can to minimize costs and maximize profits through the 

rate of production. He will therefore quickly replace the worker who produces the use-value 

but needs more time than other workers. 

Hans: Value is not determined by minimum hours but by average hours. This is not enforced by the buyers, who 

do not know the average hours, but by the competition of the sellers. 

Final Grading Note by Hans: Excellent performance. I especially appreciated your many specific references to 

the submissions of others. We all were enriched by your presence.


Message [1871] referenced by [2007SP:456]. First Message by Bubba is [142]. 

[1917] ADHH: graded A– The value of a commodity does not increase when produced by 

a slow laborer because value is calculated using the socially necessary labor time required 

to produce that commodity. There is no difference between the value of the same commodity 

made by a slower laborer or a more efficient one. The commodities will both end up 

with the same value. According to Citrus [1996ut:177-4], the market values of all similar 

commodities are the same. 

Society as a whole decides to keep the value of the output below the time actually used. 

Both the buyers and the sellers have accepted the exchanges that occur in their markets as 

fair. Enforcement occurs when the buyer pays the same price for a desk that took 12 hours 

to be assembled by a slow laborer as he does for a similar desk that took only 7 hours to be 

assembled by a more efficient laborer. 

Hans: Thank you for digging out the excellent Citrus reference. 

How did you get the idea that society decides to keep the value of the output below the time actually used? Is it 

because the workers don’t get paid a full equivalent of the value they produce? These too-low wages do not prevent 

the capitalists from charging full price when they sell their products. 

Citrus’s answer to “who decides” is: we all decide because we allow markets to run their course. 

Final Grading Note by Hans: Very good contributions to the discussion. 

Message [1917] referenced by [1922], [2007SP:76], [2007SP:456], and [2007SP:529]. First Message by ADHH is 

[99]. 

[1922] Tink: graded B+ The value of a commodity does not increase if it is made by a slow 

or inept laborer because the value of a commodity is determined by the socially necessary 

labor time, as ADHH described in [1917]. The socially necessary time is an average, thus 

the product of a slow or inept laborer does not increase in value, just as the product of a 

very fast or efficient laborer does not decrease. As more and more laborers produce, the 

discrepencies of their labor time and efficiency evens out, and the “socially necessary labor 

time” is determined. 

ADHH also described how it is society who decides the value of the output, which is 

kept below the time actually used. When members of society engage in an exchange, they 

are validating the values that have been assigned to the commodity and thus the labor input 

behind it. 

Enforcement is the result of society as well, as participants in the exchange will pay the 

same amount for the same commodity, regardless of the production time of the individual 

laborer who made it. This keeps the value of output at the mercy of the social average. 

Hans: Good and thoughtful reformulation of ADHH. 

First Message by Tink is [150]. 

[1933] Mullin: Think no further than the lesson that our parents have tried to teach us for 

years: if you want to find who is accountable or responsible for a decision look no further 

than the mirror. What I mean by this is that the value of the commodity exchanged in the 

market is ultimately determined by society or more personally put, us. How does this pertain 

to the question, I will try to explain. 

Who is content with the professor that in the first day of class announces that he/she will 

be grading on a curve? Generally it isn’t the above average student who consistently scores 

high on each assignment and exam. Rather, it is the rest of the class who find themselves 


in the middle of the pack and in particular those that are usually straggling behind. It is for 

this reason that society will not allow the value of a commodity to be lower as a result of a 

slow or inept laborer. We, as a generality, prefer to be compared as an average rather than 

individually and this is how the value of said commodity is also determined. 

As a result the extreme discrepancies in the amount of time it takes to produce a commodity, 

whether that be extremely slow or fast, becomes negligble as it doesn’t skew the 

average great enough to affect the value. Due to this relation each commodity is assigned a 

value which is figured upon the amount of input that is expected. This expectation is derived 

from the socially necessary labor time. 

Rather than enforcement I believe a more accurate term would be reinforcement that is 

the responsibility of the participants of the market. When there is no reaction to an exchange 

value of a commodity regardless of the production time, possibly because society is usually 

unaware of these figures, there is no adjustment to the socially necessary labor time which 

determines the value and the value is not affected. As a society we generally like to be 

compared to the average, and it is acceptable to be only average, and as such the value of a 

commodity is not increased due to a slow or inept worker whose production doesn’t affect 

the average enough to make a difference. 

Hans: Your answer is an excellent example of voluntarism: everything, even market outcomes, is explained by the 

wills and intentions of individuals. 

First Message by Mullin is [809]. 

[1935] Jimmie: graded B The value of a commodity is not determined by the actual labortime 

of the producer. In fact, it is determined by the socially necessary labor time needed to 

produce the commodity. This means that the value of the commodity is determined by the 

amount of time it takes the average producer of the commodity to produce it. So, the value 

is really kept at its level by society who buy at the average price from the average producer. 

Deviations from this value are pushed either towards the median value or are forced out of 

production. 

Hans: If society pays a higher price than that corresponding to an average labor content, then more suppliers will 

enter the market, until the price falls to the average. 

Message [1935] referenced by [1948]. First Message by Jimmie is [131]. 

[1944] TriPod: According to Marx a labor-power that produces twice as fast as the average 

also produces twice the value. Therefore the slow or inept worker can not produce more 

value of a commodity. Every worker is not identical they all have different labor power and 

are not equal. I think it is up to the economy in which the innovations are made to determine 

the actual time needed for production. I would agree with Jimmie that people would be 

forced out of production if they are slower or inept. Every person must meet a minimum 

standard. Everyone needs to be an average. 


[1948] COMMI: Marx gave an example of what happens to slow laborers on page 96 of 

the annotations. Power looms were introduced to England and the given amount of labor 

time was reduced by one half. The hand-loom weavers continued producing at the same 

rate, but this only equaled half of the electric powered weavers and the value fell by one 

half. Hans goes on to say that the “hand weavers simply cannot coexist”. As Tripod [1944]


and Jimmy [1935] stated these people were forced out of production as the value of their 

labor fell. The socially necessary labor time defined the value in the products. 

Hans also says that socially necessary labor-time takes away the creativity and exceptional 

contributions from individuals. All workers have to meet standards and are forced to 

keep up with the given average time to produce a product. In my eyes the worker loses his 

identity and just becomes part of the production process. 

Hans: Marx says something very similar in Contribution: 

Labor, thus measured by time, does not appear, indeed, as the labor of different persons, but 

on the contrary the different working individuals appear as mere organs of this labor. 

Final Grading Note by Hans: Many good and original thoughts. 

Message [1948] referenced by [1950]. First Message by COMMI is [230]. 

[1950] Mason: The value of a commodity does not increase with a slow or inept worker 

because of sociallly necessary labor-time which requires a worker to produce at the average 

level. If the worker or producer does not do this I believe he will not remain in the market 

very long because he will be pushed out do to stiff competition. “Socially necessary labortime 

leaves no room for this.” It forces everyone to meet this average. In the example that 

Marx gives in his annotations where the introduction of the power loom drives the workers 

out of the market because they cannot compete becasue it reduces the value of the labor in 

which they had previously produced by half. Socailly neccesary labor-time makes everyone 

conform together. It alleviates the problem of the slow or inept worker. But it also as 

Commi [1948] stated takes the “exceptional contributions” away and they therefore will not 

be recognized. It makes them become almost robotic in the way that there is no uniqueness. 

It takes away the individual. I believe that competition and the market enforces this. Because 

of the consumers wants and the competition in the market, will force the producers to 

conform to this standard. 

First Message by Mason is [222]. 

Exam Question 85 is 280 in 1996ut, 56 in 1997ut, 67 in 1999SP, 71 in 2001fa, 76 in 

2003fa, 86 in 2004fa, 98 in 2007SP, 98 in 2008fa, and 124 in 2011fa: 

Exam Question 85 Carefully explain how the “socially necessary labor-time” for the production 

of an article is determined. Is it the same as the time needed in the average to 

produce this article? 

[534] MarxSchmarx: graded A Socially necessary labor-time. The “socially necessary 

labor-time” for the production of an article is determined by at what point in time you decide 

to derive value. First and foremost, it has to be equated for a fixed, not a span of, time. This 

relates the social necessary labor-time to the prevailing technology. In the example given in 

the annotations, the by-hand process of weaving cannot be included in computing the social 

value of labor-time for a good that was produced using the newer, and more efficient power 

looms. The emergence of the more technological method (power looms) voids the labor-time 

of the older hand-weaving method. Using the older technology, the exchange-value of yarn 

would be about twice that of the same product that was formed with the newer technology. 

When there are two homogenous products that are produced using two different methods, the 

product with the lower “social value of labor-time” would be the cheaper commodity, even 

though it was produced with a newer technology. There would be no market for the older 


technology produced product, for the same product would be more expensive. If they were 

combined within the same computation of value, the exchange-value would lie somewhere 

in the middle of the respective values. 

It is also not the same as the time needed in the average to produce the product. At a 

point in time when two products are produced differently, it would be wrong to include the 

labor-time necessary to produce the good using the lesser, or less prevailing, technology. 

Message [534] referenced by [543], [567], and [2008fa:568]. Next Message by MarxSchmarx is [565]. 

[543] Iblindone: (graded A) RE: Socially necessary labor-time. In response to MarxSchma 

answer to question 85 in [534], I believe there is an easier more concise way to answer the 

question. 

“Socially necessary labor-time” would be the average time for a fixed level of technology 

(meaning the newest technology available to produce a product) to produce a commodity. 

So hand woven linen would trade at a lesser exchange value than that of machine woven 

linen. It wouldn’t per se not have a market it would just be traded at a lesser value. 

Message [543] referenced by [565] and [567]. Next Message by Iblindone is [569]. 

[565] MarxSchmarx: Socially necessary labor-time. Iblindone, I have to respectfully 

disagree with your analysis of my answer [543]. If the good that was hand woven was a 

homogenous commodity to the good that was machine woven, and the hand woven good 

was cheaper than the machine good (according to your explanation), what would encourage 

anyone to purchase the newer technology-produced (higher priced) good? The goods are 

the same. If you are saying that the old technology would result in a cheaper product, why 

improve technology? 

Message [565] referenced by [567]. Next Message by MarxSchmarx is [816]. 

[567] Hans: How to define socially necessary labor-time. The socially necessary labortime 

is defined by Marx as the time it takes to produce a good with the socially normal means 

of production and average skill and intensity of the labor. The socially normal conditions are 

not necessarily the best conditions. In the production of steel, for instance, the equipment 

is very expensive and long-lasting. It is simply not possible for every steel mill to always 

have the newest and most efficient equipment. But socially normal conditions are also not 

the same as the average time used for producing the article. The question which production 

method is socially normal depends on the concrete conditions and cannot be solved by a 

mathematical formula. As a rule of thumb, however, the average is fairly accurate in most 

cases. 

Both MarxSchmarx [534] and Iblindone [543] equate the socially normal with the best 

conditions. Although Marx did the same thing in his own example of the power looms, this 

example should not be generalized. 

Iblindone made a logical error when he said that the older production methods have a 

lower price; he probably meant a lower profit. MarxSchmarx politely pointed out in [565] 

that Iblindone’s [543] could not be right. I wish this would happen more often in the homework 

discussion. We all are human and make mistakes. If someone makes a mistake, and 

nobody comments on it, then it seems as if nobody cares about what you say. Although it 

may seem rude to point out mistakes, we are in this class in order to learn, therefore we


should be grateful for any input. Class participants may be hesitant to give such input because 

they do not want to depress the grades of their peers. Therefore I am always waiting a 

little before I give you your grades. If someone corrects you, and then you respond by either 

acknowledging your error or explaining yourself better, then I will take your response into 

consideration when giving you your grade. 


[569] Iblindone: Re: Socially necessary labor-time. Now that I read my response I 

should have worded it a little different. In my attempt to make it simple and short I made 

an error. What I was trying to say was that the production method of hand woven linen 

wouldn’t be as productive as machine woven linen and would hence forth trade at a lesser 

value (not lesser than machine but as a homogenous commodity) because the average labor 

time to produce linen would decrease as a result of the new technology. When I was saying 

lesser value I wasn’t referring to hand vs. machine linen. I was referring it to the commodity 

as a whole in reference to the market. Obviously linen is linen and would be traded at the 

same exchange value whether it is machine or hand woven. I believe this is what Marx was 

saying in Capital. If not please correct me. 

Next Message by Iblindone is [762]. 

Question 86 is 52 in 1997ut, 68 in 1999SP, and 99 in 2008fa: 

Question 86 Did Marx introduce additional assumptions in order to resolve the paradox 

of the lazy worker, or does his solution follow from assumptions made or results derived in 

section 1.1.d? 

[115] Gza: graded A Marx did not make “additional assumptions” to resolve the problem 

of the “lazy worker”. In section “1.1 d”, Marx provides two alternatives for analyzing the 

value of labor in which he addresses the problem of the “lazy worker.” The first analysis 

does not solve the problem of the “lazy worker” while his second analysis does. 

Marx first says in 129:1 “a useful article has commodity value only because human labor 

in the abstract is objectified or materialized in it.” This means that labor is treated just like 

articles in the market place in that articles can be exchanged for other goods because articles 

have value in the sense that they use up resources from society. Labor, like articles also 

uses up society’s supply of abstract labor. Marx suggests that the amount of goods that one 

can get in exchange for an article is dependent upon the amount of labor that went into the 

production of the article, or “how much labor was congealed in it” (Hans). The value of the 

article is in the “total” labor that went into its production. 

Marx directly poses the problem of the “lazy worker” from the above analysis by stating 

that “it might seem that the value of a commodity is determined by the amount of labor spent 

in its production, the more lazy and inept the laborer, the more valuable his commodity” 

(Marx 129). 

From this abstract analysis, Marx shifts into the concept of “average labor” as a way to 

get out of the “lazy worker” dilemma. He suggests that “the individual commodity counts 

here generally as an average of its kind” meaning that labor time and the commodity’s usevalue 

are to be looked at on the average. The majority of articles will contain the socially 

necessary labor time and as long as use-values are equal, the market will treat various articles 


the same. The solution to the “lazy worker” is that he will have to “compete” with “average” 

workers producing identical articles, so he therefore cannot demand more for his output 

simply because it took him longer. 

The only “assumption” that Marx seems to make is that the “average” is actual and majorital. 

Marx is correct in assuming that regardless of the timeliness of the “work force”, 

there is always going to be an average time in which products are made, even if it is a slow 

(on average). It does not really matter at this point if the whole work force is lazy because 

the value of an article is always going to be sold at the same price and workers will have to 

use the average as the standard, no matter how slow it is. The average is a reflection of the 

laborers as a whole. 

Where there can be a problem in Marx’s analysis is if he assumes that the majority of laborers 

are average. If the majority are not average and most could objectively be considered 

“slow” and it is an elite few that make the “average” high, then there is going to be a problem 

with exchanges. However, I do not think that Marx is using the term “average” literally. 

Instead I think he is using it to describe what “most” laborers are like and how fast they work 

and not the mathematical operation. I think I am justified in interpreting Marx’s use of the 

term “average” to refer to the majority because he is drawing his conclusions based on his 

analysis of total labor-power being “represented in the values of the commodities produced 

by society,” where society is mediated through the concept of what is “socially necessary.” 

This eludes to Marx to take into consideration the context of the dilemma and not reduce the 

standard in mathematical terms. If Marx is using the average to describe the majority and 

“social necessity” then he makes no unnecessary assumptions regarding the “lazy worker” 

dilemma. 

The only question at this point in Marx’s argument would be what happens to the “lazy 

worker”? Within section “1.1 d” there is no explicit consequence. It can be assumed that 

the lazy worker stops being lazy because he is held to the average standard. However, if he 

continues to be lazy, I would assume he/she starves. If the whole labor market becomes lazy 

then everyone hurts, even if they meet their average standard. This is still not a desirable 

outcome. These problems are not addressed, but logically, I do not think Marx needs to 

address them within this section. 

Hans: About your second paragraph: Marx has not yet made the assumption that labor is a commodity. He will 

introduce this in chapter Six. Even in society in which labor itself is not a commodity (i.e., one cannot hire wage 

workers or it is very unusual to do so), labor still determines the values of the goods traded. 

You are right, in a wage-labor situation the slow worker will get fired. In a situation where the slow worker sells 

his or her own product, he or she will have to work longer than others to produce an equivalent for the things he or 

she needs. 

I don’t think “eludes” is the word you meant. 


[117] Thugtorious: (graded A) Can every laborer be lazy . . . ? At the bottom of Gza’s 

response and at some point in the middle, he/she says that if the labor market as a whole 

becomes lazy an undesirable outcome would occur. However, my question is can the whole 

labor market be “lazy”? Not in the sense of the word “lazy” as in “is it physically, mentally, 

emotionally, etc. possible?” But, more in the sense of logically plausible meaning: if more 

people work at a slower pace in production than do not, should not the slower pace become


the social average of labor needed to produce that commodity? If this wasn’t the case, we 

would have more of a Tayloristic type of production where the speed is based upon the 

fastest members or higher end of the average. I agree with the answer given by GZA, except 

I do not see how you can have a majority of the labor force being lazy without affecting the 

value of the product. 

And, as for what happens to the lazy worker: in the long run, Gza is right, the laborer 

will starve. In the short run, being that the division and specialization of labor breaks down 

the tasks of production to individual menial tasks, the laborer is easily replaced by someone 

who can work at the at the average social pace of labor. 

Hans: Yes, you caught an error in Gza’s response. If everybody in the entire labor market would work at a slower 

pace, then this slower pace would become the social norm, and the value of the product would rise. 


[118] Pete: (graded B weight 30%) We must start somewhere. Setting the standard for 

time spent to create a product involves paid labour, fixed costs and variable costs in order 

to arrive at a minimum value of the item. If the labour that is orginally factored into the 

value is slower it stands to reason that the product will have a value with the slower labour 

factored in. Now, when faster labour is introduced, the time to make the product goes down 

and profit increases. If the labourer’s pay depends on quantity the slower labour will starve. 

. 

Hans: You are talking about labor costs. This is not the same as the value of the product. 


[124] Hans: Cost and value are two different things. Pete, in [118], defines the value of 

a good to be the sum of its costs plus profit, the minimum value being the sum of the costs 

alone. Despite the fact that labor costs usually are a large portion of the costs, this theory is 

importantly different from Marx’s theory. 

In Marx’s theory, the value of a good is not determined by its costs, but by its labor 

content. If a good has 10 hours of direct and indirect labor in it, and each hour of labor 

produces a value of 30 dollars, then the value of the good is 300 dollars. 

The breakdown of this value of 300 dollars into cost and profit does not explain how these 

300 dollars are constituted. Rather it explains who gets what when the product is sold. 

To keep the example as simple as possible, assume that there is only direct labor of 10 

hours involved, no materials or machinery have to be bought. And assume each laborer gets 

$20 per hour. 

Then the labor cost is $200 and the profit is $100. 

The important point here is: although the workers produce a value of $30 per hour, their 

wage is only $20 per hour. Marx will explain in chapter Six how this wage is determined, 

all we need to know here is: this wage is lower than the value produced by the worker. The 

difference between the full value of the product based on its labor content, and the costs, is 

the profit. 

This is why Marx says: profits come from the unpaid labor of the workers. 



Question 90 is 45 in 1995WI, 54 in 1995ut, 56 in 1996sp, 60 in 1997WI, 63 in 1997sp, 59 

in 1997ut, 79 in 2002fa, 81 in 2003fa, 104 in 2007SP, 107 in 2008SP, 105 in 2008fa, 112 

in 2010fa, and 131 in 2012fa: 

Question 90 How is the value of raw materials determined in Marx’s theory? How does 

the scarcity of these materials influence their value? Is Marx’s argument still valid in the 

case of an exhaustible resource, which is present only in finite supply? 

[151] Picard: content A form 90% In Marx’s theory the value of raw materials is determined 

by how difficult it is to extract it from the earth, in other words what quantity of labor 

is required to mine it. Concerning the effects of scarcity of materials on value Marx writes: 

when a material is rare it takes more labor to find it and extract it. So scarcity and value are 

related in this way: a rare material will need more labor to mine it and thus be more valuable. 

I believe that if the material was only in a finite supply and could be exhausted, the above 

theory would not be valid, it would hold only a very small part of the equation. Take for 

example oil. It seems, by the amount of profit made by oil companies (easily in the billions 

for the large ones), that it is above its value as determined by scarcity and quantity of labor. 

I would conclude from this that other determinants of value take priority in exhaustible 

materials, perhaps those would include society’s need and/or dependence on it. 

Hans: Good thinking, but some of your original grammar was pretty impossible. I edited it to make it smoother 

reading. Please compare with your original at http://marx.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/economics-5080/Week-of-Mon- 

20050912/000124.html. It seems you would just need a little coaching and practice; you would probably benefit 

a lot from Jane Laird’s Econ 3905, see http://marx.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/economics-5080/Week-of-Mon- 

20050829/000039.html. 

Message [151] referenced by [259]. Next Message by Picard is [522]. 

[155] Thugtorious: graded A Response to Picard and Scarcity of Oil. Oil is one of the 

greatest contradictions plaguing us today in our capitalistic society. However, I think that it 

is one of the best examples of the labor theory of value. If you look at the recent year’s gas 

prices, they have sky rocketed. Why? Is it because crude is becoming scarcer? Maybe. Has 

demand gone through the roof compared to what it was in the 90’s? Some may make that 

argument with the booming economy of China. But, below all of this surface friction, there 

are deeper elements at play. 

With the war in Iraq, oil production over there has had to start incurring the costs of more 

security (labor) so that terrorists don’t destroy their production facilities which increases 

their costs of production, and these costs are passed on to the consumer. Further, with the 

effects of Katrina, oil production facilities will need maintenance and repair (labor) before 

they can be back on line. And, since most production facilities are producing at 95% to 100% 

capacity, they (by the nature of production) need more labor in response to the increase in 

demand. Plus, many scientists have noted that the best crude in the world has already been 

depleted; all the crude that is left takes more production (labor) to refine to a usable grade. I 

also doubt that the workers in the Middle East, Venezuela, and other OPEC countries receive 

anywhere near the value that they create, and anywhere near what oil workers receive in 

America; hence, huge profits for the “oil barons.” One might argue that these nations are not 

“capitalistic” countries. However, they engage in trade with the United States, Britain, and 

other predominantly capitalistic nations, so they engage in capitalistic trade; capitalism does


not know countries or nations, it only knows exploitation. So, it is not the eternal tug-ofwar 

between supply and demand over scarce raw materials, but the underlying response of 

the further exploitation of the laborer by the capitalist to meet these demands that raises the 

prices of oil. 

Marx does note his own version of the “diamond paradox” in chapter 1 by saying that 

situations like the diamond mines are exceptions to the rule. But, as we can see with the 

example of oil, there are many more examples that hold true compared to the few exceptions. 

Hans: Oil is a commodity, yes, but we need to know more about oil and modern capitalism in order to explain 

what is happening in the Middle East. Don’t forget, we are just at the beginning of the book. 

Message [155] referenced by [174] and [2008fa:161]. Next Message by Thugtorious is [157]. 

[170] Ash: content A form 95% Raw materials, according to Marx, are determined by 

the labor used in extracting them. For example, wheat is a raw material for bread. Wheat 

is much easier to extract (or grow and harvest) than gold, therefore, wheat would not be as 

valuable as gold. 

Marx takes scarcity into effect along the same reasoning. If it is more scarce then it must 

take more labor to obtain it, and therefore, has greater value. 

Marx’s theory on value does not seem to have merit in our economy today. Take the 

victims of hurricane Katrina. How much would one person pay for a bottle of water if they 

have not had it for two days? The labor invested in the water is the same, but the price would 

go up dramatically because of the scarcity of drinkable water in the region. This contradicts 

Marx’s labor theory of value. 

Some students have argued oil as support to Marx’s theory. Yes, it is a non-replenishable 

commodity, unlike wheat. However, until it is to the point where we have near to none left, 

oil remains a poor example as even now we have enough to meet demand despite the gulf 

crisis. What we are experiencing is exploitation of the crisis and pure capitalist greed. 

Hans: Prices converge towards, or rotate around, labor-values only in the long run, when demand and supply have 

had time to adjust. In a hurricane situation, there is excess demand for water, therefore prices will rise above labor 

content. 

Message [170] referenced by [176]. Next Message by Ash is [520]. 

[176] MK: In response to Ash [170]: I believe that you have answered correctly. But I 

would like to make a few comments on your example of the hurricane. As I understand it, the 

bottle of water may indeed have more labor involved. The water was not likely purchased 

from a local market, nor was it pulled from a local well. Most likely it was shipped in 

with urgency– perhaps in the middle of the night, perhaps the loading of trucks, trains and 

airplanes for extended hours and in difficult conditions. The water was likely carried by 

hand to many persons in need and delivered at any and all hours despite the obstacles of 

sewage, water, electrical outage and danger. In the event that the person delivering the water 

was in fact to charge a fee, it may be argued that they have grounds to ask a greater fee than 

average. 

However, in the case of an individual in urgent need of water after a natural disaster– 

I don’t believe this example truly identifies the market as a whole. This seems to be an 

exception as opposed to the rule. 



[180] Overlord: In response to [177]: 

The bottle of water in a normal situation would have no more labor involved, therefore no 

added value. In the hurricane situation the bottle of water would have many additional labor 

steps added due to the urgency and immediate NEED for the water. Actually producing 

the bottle of water would require no addition labor so the extra value would not come from 

production. The extra value would come from higher demand and the extra labor required to 

deliver the bottles of water to each individual. I don’t think it follows Marx’s theory exactly 

but it does make some similarities. 

Next Message by Overlord is [218]. 

[259] Ernesto: How the value of raw materials is determined. I agree with all of the 

information that Picard uses in [151] to establish the foundation of answering question 90. 

Picard elaborates on how the value is derived, however, I disagree with the comments made 

with regard to finite materials. First we must define the words scarcity and finite. Scarcity 

is not plentiful, deficient, rare, and uncommon. Finite is limited in quantity, measurable, 

and countable. All resources are finite and scarce. The scarcity is relative one with another. 

Water is less scarce than gold, nevertheless, their is a finite supply of both. The more finite 

a material becomes the harder it is to extract from the earth. Hence the price will indicate 

this. Oil is no different. The price of oil is based on how efficient it can be extracted from 

the earth. The middle east can extract oil cheaper by the barrel than any other place on earth. 

The only difference is OPEC meddling in the affairs of pricing. When these reserves are 

exhausted other processes will be utilized to generate oil. One example would be the oil 

shale of Alaska. Currently it isn’t that profitable because it is harder to extract, however, 

the more scarce it becomes the more economical it becomes. I believe that oil is a prime 

example of labor theory of value. The price of oil will continue to rise as supplies become 

depleted. The cost of harvesting oil clearly demonstrates this phenomenon. At the point 

of exhausting all oil supplies the market will vanish and labor will be dispersed to other 

industries, and their services will be used to harvest other materials. Another issue is how 

renewable these resources are and the labor used to renew such resources. 

Hans: Everything is finite, but this does not explain the difference between oil and water. Water is constantly 

recycled, while oil was deposited once by biological processes, and once these deposits are used up, that will be 

it. Many people say (and I agree) that we are responsible for the kind of world which we are passing on to future 

generations. Modern mainstream economics is blind about this problematics. 


Question 94 is 64 in 1997WI, 66 in 1997sp, 61 in 1997ut, 77 in 2001fa, and 85 in 2003fa: 

Question 94 Give another example where the same thing has two different effects. Can you 

identify, in your example, two different aspects of the thing which are responsible for these 

different effects. 

[130] Overlord: Marx gave the example of two aspects of labor having two different 

effects. My example will show that a vehicle (simple passenger car) while having the main 

purpose of transportation, simultaneously has a different effect on the environment. The two 

aspects of the vehicle being the energy transfer from the motor to the wheels, and the exhaust 

gases coming from the tail pipe. The first aspect moves the passengers from one point to 

another while simultaneously the second aspect is emitting exhaust gases into the air.


Hans: Good example. There is even some analogy to the double character of labor. Just as useful labor cannot be 

performed without the utilization of labor-power, it is equally impossible for an internal combustion engine to drive 

a vehicle forward without polluting the air with exhaust fumes. 


[150] Tink: graded A In section 1.2, Marx discussus the double character of labor. He 

determines that labor has two distinctly different effects, “namely, the commodity’s usevalue 

and value” (Annontations pg 47). Having two such different effects must be the result 

of of an aspect within the cause (labor). Another large example of this concept would be the 

effects of war. War has very striking effects on a nation. War is very expensive for a nation 

and will most likely cause a government to go into debt. The very same war that causes such 

debt for a nation will also require much labor, generate many jobs, and thus stimulate the 

economy and bolster revenue. The different aspects of war which create such effects are the 

need for the large amounts of manpower, machinery and technology, which causes massive 

spending. Also is the need for people to manufacture weapons, design and test strategies, 

and other aids which in turn create jobs and stimulate the economy. 

War illustrates another thing, that like labor, has two different effects created by two 

different aspects within the cause. Just like within the labor process there are both concrete 

useful labor and abstract human labor, within war there is necessity of massive spending and 

debt, and also a creation of wealth in new jobs, and an economy booster. 

Hans: Beyond these economic effects, the human suffering connected with every war also deserve to be called 

“striking” effects of war. 


[152] Hans: War and overproduction. The two effects of war, which Tink described in 

[150], are not only different from each other but even contradictory. If you see a contradiction 

somewhere, it is often possible to trace this contradiction to a more basic contradiction. 

A Marxist might try to argue: the contradiction that a war is not only an expense but also a 

stimulant of the economy is rooted in the deeper contradiction of overproduction and underconsumption 

in capitalism: the economy is not able to produce as much as it could because 

it does not pay its workers enough, therefore there is insufficient demand. 


Question 99 is 50 in 1995WI, 59 in 1995ut, 66 in 1997WI, 75 in 1999SP, 79 in 2000fa, 79 


Question 99 Why did God create something as imperfect as nature and humans? (And what 

does this have to do with the topic at hand?) Compare . 

[123] Pete: graded A– It is very presumptuous of me to speculate as to why God did 

anything. Having said that, Nature and Humans are imperfect. Therefore, they have no 

choice but to do what comes natural to them. Humans are always looking for ways to make 

a better mousetrap. Marx explains this on page 163, “The fetishism of the commodity and 

its secret”. He said, “It is absolutely clear that, by his activity, man changes the forms of the 

materials of nature in such a way as to make them useful to him.” He goes on to say that 

wood is altered if a table is made out of it. Even though it is now a table it is still wood. 


We must realize that if God didn’t make humans imperfect there would nothing to improve 

upon. Thinking would not exist as we know it today. Thoughts would not be tossed 

about in conversation. Options would not be explored. 

What does this question have to do with the subject? One must understand why humans 

are prone to ask questions and find answers. Changing how things are done by trial and 

error helps one to understand what works and what doesn’t. This opens up a new dialogue 

to improve again and again. 

Hans: By creating new things humans not only change the world but also themselves. This freedom is not recognized 

in your formulation: “they have no choice but to do what comes natural to them.” 


[125] PAE: It think God created something as imperfect as humans and nature because in 

doing so it gives both the ability to change for the better. Nature as much as humans is able 

to take a disaster, fire, flood, or whatever and still flourish. Look at the way a forest recovers 

after a massive forest fire. Just the same humans have the ability to take raw materials 

combined with intelligence and attempt to make changes which better ourselves on many 

different levels (physically, emotionally, spiritually). Also we have the ability to recognize 

situations or different ways of thinking that make society in general better off. 

I think that is what this topic of being imperfect and the ability to change has to do with 

Marx’s Capital in general. Marx is trying to give people a different view of society and the 

way our economy works. I think his view is that the capitalist system we have works for 

now but can be changed to better suit the needs of a greater amount of people. If we were all 

just perfect we wouldn’t be reading anything like Capital because we would have no reason 

to ever change anything. 

While humans and nature will never be perfect it is imperative that we try and always 

evolve by exchanging new ideas. If society was always scared to change none of us would 

have any of the wonderful things we have today. 

Message [125] referenced by [128]. Next Message by PAE is [159]. 

[128] Hans: The imperfection of the world. In Marx’s philosophical outlook, existence 

if primary, it is the raw material from which we can make things. Marx was battling idealism 

all his life. Idealism claims that ideas are primary and existence only secondary. If someone 

holds the belief that our earthly existence is a test in which we have to prove our virtue, 

existence is not primary but our existence is a means to a higher end. The philosophical 

view that there is a perfect god, who created the earth and humans in order to get to know 

himself, also holds that god is primary and the earth secondary. Marx would reject all these 

views as idealistic. 

Pete [123] and PAE [125] give another argument against the world being governed by 

perfect and immutable ideas. If this were the case, everything would be closed off, there 

would be no development and no freedom. In Marx’s view, humans can build their own 

world. They will not be judged by whether they adhere to some ideas, but by the world 

which they are passing on to future generations. 


Question 100 is 113 in 2007SP, 114 in 2007fa, 114 in 2008fa, and 119 in 2009fa:


Question 100 Coat and linen are qualitatively different use-values. Are they exchanged 

because their use-values are different, or because the labors in them are different? 

[112] Iblindone: content B– form 95% The coat and linen can be exchanged for many 

different reasons – it is up to the individuals exchanging the goods. Due to social division 

of labor, individuals specialize in different types of labor and therefore an individual that 

specializes in producing linen uses less labor-time than another individual that specializes 

in producing coats and vice versa. By these two trading they are not only trading the usevalues, 

they are trading because the labor is different in them (labor-time). By trading they 

both can have more commodities (use-values) for less labor. 

Hans: Your answer to the question seems to be: the underlying reason of their trading is not the difference in the 

use-values themselves, also not the differences in labor, but the savings in labor-time. 

Message [112] referenced by [113], [2007SP:84], [2007SP:436], and [2007SP:509]. Next Message by Iblindone is 

[538]. 

[113] Hans: How voluntary is our market participation? Iblindone’s answer [112] 

gives a good overview of the mainstream economics approach to the exchange process via 

absolute advantage. Individuals can decide whether to trade or not, and they trade only if it 

is to their advantage. Marx’s approach is different. In his theory, it is not up to the individual 

whether they exchange or not. Individuals cannot produce alone. They need society because 

they need produced use-values. Society has an elaborate market system ready for them, 

which the individuals must engage in if they do not want to starve. 

The emphasis of Marx’s analysis is the structure of this market, i.e., how prices are determined 

and which things are on the market (not only goods but also wage-labor and interestbearing 

assets). This structure is not determined by individual preferences but by the underlying 

organization of social production. A Marxist would say: as long as the individuals do 

not really have a choice, individual preferences cannot explain much. The individuals are 

embedded in a web of social relations which they have not created. You cannot start with 

the individual to understand these social relations, but you have to understand the logic of 

these relations in their own right. (For capitalist social relations, a good starting point is not 

the individual but the commodity.) 


[114] Thugtorious: (graded A) Chicken and Egg. The question, in my opinion, still 

remains a little unanswered. It is a sort of “chicken and the egg” paradox: is it the differing 

useful labors or the use-values of the commodities themselves that allows for exchange? I 

think that the question itself needs a little clarification: the commodities themselves are exchanged 

amongst people because of their different use-values, i.e. you would not exchange 

commodity A with a person for commodity B if you did not see a potential use-value within 

commodity B. However, below this market transaction, you will find that the commodities 

are able to be exchanged in this manner also because of their use-value. The useful labor 

congealed in the commodities must be different in order for them to be able to be exchanged. 

However, if the use-values of the final product are the same, then the labor expended within 

production must also be the same. If two commodities have the same use-values then they 

cannot be exchanged as commodities in the market. And, the congealed labor within the 

commodities is the same. The inverse of this is also true: if the commodities have different 

use-values, then they can be exchanged, and the labor congealed in them must be different. 


So, in answering the question, it is the use-value of the commodities being different that 

allows them to be exchanged and also provides the reason of why they are exchanged. 

The differing qualities of labor used within the production of each commodity are an 

element within the exchange-value of the two commodities. The use value is the reason for 

which they are exchanged, while the exchange-value is the way in which that is possible. 

Hans: It is true that the use-values are different whenver the labors are different and vice versa. But despite their 

simultaneous occurrence they still can have different causal effects. I say in [116] what the effects of different 

labors might be. 


[116] Hans: Pulling the strings in the background. If the use-values were equal, people 

on the market would not see reason to exchange. But if the labors were equal, then there 

might perhaps be no division of labor at all, rather everybody might produce everything for 

themselves. 

This intention of question 100 is to encourage you to think more about the effects which 

the organization of production has for our daily lives. At the beginning of Das Kapital, Marx 

makes exactly this kind of inference: he asks what the activity of the commodity owners on 

the market tells us about the underlying relations of production. 

Many things which we may take for granted in our daily lives have their unacknowledged 

reasons in the sphere of production. For instance, one often hears that schools are so bad 

because there is not enough money for them. Why isn’t there more money available for 

schools? The deeper reason is that the exploitative capitalist relations do not need welleducated 

wage-workers. If the cannon-fodder on the assembly lines is educated, this makes 

things more difficult for the capitalists. All they need to learn is how to show up on time and 

follow boring orders. Besides, it is useful for your employer if you are convinced that you 

are dumb and do not deserve better. This is exactly what our school system teaches. 

Message [116] referenced by [114], [134], and [2010fa:1209]. Next Message by Hans is [121]. 

[134] DarkKnight: graded A The coat and the linen are exchanged because their usevalues 

are different, with the exception that one might wrap five yards of linen about oneself 

to keep warm instead of exchanging it for a coat. Typically, however, they would be used for 

different purposes. Though the labors used to produce each commodity might be qualitatively 

different (the production processes are different), at a basic level, the abstract human 

labor is the same. A laborer’s time and effort were used in the production process, regardless 

of the commodity produced. Per Marx, the equality of the labor is expressed by the 

exchange. The value of the labor of five yards of linen and the coat are equal because that is 

what we find when they are exchanged on the market. 

Hans: Your conclusion can be framed in the paradoxical formulation: commodities are exchanged because the 

labors in them are different (otherwise everyone would just produce their own, see [116]), and because the labors 

are equal (this provides the commonality on which the exchange is based). But we are no longer afraid of contradictions, 

are we? 

Next Message by DarkKnight is [398]. 

Question 106 is 79 in 1999SP, 94 in 2003fa, 105 in 2004fa, 119 in 2007SP, 120 in 2007fa, 

and 130 in 2010fa:


Question 106 When Marx wrote that labor is the father and the earth the mother of usevalues, 

should he also have included produced means of production in addition to nature 

and labor? 

[254] Phatteus: No, “produced means of production” should not have been included in 

the statement. As Prof. Ehrbar states “any body of a commodity, is a combination of two 

elements-matter and labor.” 

These “produced means of production,” or tools, can be looked at as another commodity 

that was created from matter and labor. The point that Marx was trying to make is that labor 

and nature are the basic building blocks of creation. All things created can be looked at in 

these basic forms, nature or matter and labor. 

In the example given of the linen and the coat, no mention is given to the tools (produced 

means of production) but rather only to the use-value of each item. The use-value of 

commodities are not based upon the tools used in production but rather the finished product 

alone. 

Hans: You are giving good reasons for excluding them, but I still think they should have been included. 

Next Message by Phatteus is [848]. 

Exam Question 107 is 54 in 1995WI, 63 in 1995ut, 67 in 1996sp, 71 in 1997WI, 80 in 

1999SP, 85 in 2000fa, 106 in 2004fa, 132 in 2010fa, 152 in 2011fa, and 151 in 2012fa: 

Exam Question 107 Is labor the only source of the use-values of its products, or do other 

factors contribute to the use-values as well? Is labor the only source of the values of its 

products, or do other factors contribute to the values as well? (“Value” is here the property 

which makes things exchangeable.) 

[138] Tiny: There are other sources to consider in use-values of products. Marx makes 

a point 133:2/o that there is a needed combination of two elements. Matter and Labor. He 

states that when labor is taken away, material will be furnished by nature without the help 

of man. He gives an example of an insect transforming itself into silk, and metals arranged 

to form a watch. I do believe that man will proceed in the same way as nature itself does– 

changing form of matter. But, I also believe labor can be important to help matter change. 

William Petty remarks: labor is its father and earth its mother. I believe man can produce 

and make products out of matter; maybe even some forms which nature would not be able 

to. 

For example, would nature be able to build a vehicle (means of transportation)? Nature 

may not be able to build a vehicle as detailed and mechanical as a major car company, but 

nature may find a way to offer a means of transportation. 

Nature can offer other products or outcomes that man might not be able to or even within 

a period of time. For example, rivers, streams, lakes and floodings. What may require 

timeliness of man, nature could do in days or hours. 

So, are there other factors involved? Yes, definitely. Labor is not the only indispensable 

factor. Nature is indispensable too. 

Hans: You were only answering half the question, that about use-values. 

Message [138] referenced by [140]. Next Message by Tiny is [912]. 


[140] Hans: substratum = underlying layer. It is sometimes difficult to read a text in 

such a way that one understands what the author wanted to convey. In 133:2/o, Marx writes: 

Any of the use-values coat, linen, etc. ... is a combination of two elements– 

matter and labor. If we take away the useful labor expended upon them, a 

material substratum is always left, which is furnished by nature without the 

help of man. 

Tiny [138] thought this meant that, if labor is taken away, nature itself will produce things 

for us: insects will produce silk etc. Marx meant to say something completely different. His 

“taking away labor” was meant figuratively. If you analyze a finished product and take away 

the labor and its effects, there will always an underlying layer that is furnished by nature 

without labor: in a watch it is the ore of the metal, in bread it is the wild-growing wheat. 


[624] McDugall: graded B Labor is not the only source of the use-value. Natural resources 

were not produced using labor, they existed. Since the natural resources have use-value labor 

cannot be the only source of use-value. 

Yes, labor is defined as value, therefore value from labors products must be the only 

value. 

Hans: The existence of use-values that do not require labor is a good proof that labor cannot be the only source of 

use-value. 

In Marx’s theory it is true, as you say, that labor is the only source of value. But the reason for this is not that 

“labor is defined as value.” Rather it is the central thesis of the labor theory of value that value, i.e., that inherent 

quality in the commodities which expresses itself in their exchangeability, is the abstract labor contained in them. 

This does not come from society assigning value to labor, but it is a spontaneous byproduct of market competition 

with a flexible work force. 


Question 110 is 69 in 1996sp, 74 in 1997WI, 76 in 1997sp, 72 in 1997ut, 95 in 2002fa, 98 

in 2003fa, 109 in 2004fa, 123 in 2007SP, and 127 in 2008fa: 

Question 110 Define abstract labor and explain why Marx’s theory can be summarized as: 

“Under capitalism, labor has social significance only as abstract labor.” 

[135] Prairierose: As Professor Ehrbar elucidates on page 57 of annotations “all labor, 

whatever its concrete form, is also ‘abstract labor’ — not because we can think about in 

the abstract, but because all labor is the expenditure of human nerves, brains, muscles, etc. 

Abstract labor in this definition is a real aspect of every labor process.” In a capitalist society 

it is only possible for labor to be measured as abstract labor. The abstract labor is representative 

of the physical and mental efforts input into the commodity by the worker. Labor is 

then socially significant in the capitalist market through abstract labor. The capitalist market 

trades the commodities with money. The money then flows back to the worker in the form 

of wages. However, a greater amount of the money earned from the commodity is sent back 

to the owner. Through this process of exchange in the capitalist market labor has social 

significance only as abstract labor. 

Hans: In this chain of arguments it is important to note that the money which the capitalist gets for the commodity 

is (in Marx’s theory) a representation of the abstract labor content of the commodity. In neoclassical economics,


money represents the utility of the buyer; in Marx’s economics, by contrast, money represents the labor in the 

product. 

Message [135] referenced by [137]. Next Message by Prairierose is [494]. 

[137] Michael: Comments on Prarierose’s response. Prarierose says in [135]: “In a 

capitalist society it is only possible for labor to be measured as abstract labor.” Be careful 

here. Abstract labor isn’t something directly observable; Marx is arguing that the form in 

which abstract labor manifests itself is exchange value, which is measurable. In fact, only 

on the basis of abstract labor, as it acts as common denominator, can different concrete 

labors be compared; while only concrete labors can be measured. This is the duality of 

(commodity producing) labor: that it is concrete and abstract; qualitative and quantitative; 

produces use-values and, at the same time, value. To be clear, we can speak of, say, two 

hours of a doctor’s labor and three hours of a computer programmer’s labor, in which case 

we have measured concrete labors; but we can’t sensibly compare the two according to their 

respective products, which are two different use-values. 



Question 111 Carefully explain the meaning of the statement: “The dissolution of all commodities 

into labor-time is no greater an abstraction, and is no less real, than the dissolution 

of all organic bodies into air.” 

[1846] BonzoIsGod: graded A– Abstraction of Commodities. Marx is simply stating 

that as long as there is production, commodities can be broken down into the consumption of 

human labor-power. This simple abstraction is analogous to the acceptance that all organic 

materials can be broken down into air, thus to show the “dissolution” of commodities is 

not so “far-fetched.” “Just as burning is a real abstraction in nature, so the reduction of all 

commodities to the expenditure of human labor-power contained in them is a real abstraction 

made in society whenever there is commodity production” (Ehrbar, 58). 

Hans: Production is always the consumption of human labor-power; you don’t need commodity production for this 

to be the case. But in commodity production, the allocation of labor has to follow the market, therefore the intrinsic 

equality of all labors as the expenditure of human labor-power becomes a practical fact and not just a thought. 

You don’t need any “acceptance” that organic compounds can be broken down into air; all you need to do is put 

a match to them. 

Final Grading Note by Hans: You are breaking new ground; for many of the homework questions your answer 

was the first answer. Always thoughtful and interesting to read. But I would have liked to see you try your acumen 

on one of the really central questions of Marxian theory. 

Excerpt from a recommendation letter: He is an independent thinker who expresses himself clearly and concisely. 

Every word written by him counts, he cuts down to the essentials. His discourse is logical and easy to 

understand. He wrote an essay about himself which was disarmingly honest and subtly humorous without being 

self-deprecating. (But he was diplomatic enough to slip in some flattering remarks about my class.) He is a wellorganized, 

reliable, and steady worker, often the first to submit a given assignment. He did not take advantage of 

an easy extra-credit assignment which many of his peers used to improve their grades. I.e., he did his job but did 

not fish for grades. Through all his interactions shines through a sincere person with integrity. I think law school 

is a good career choice for him. He has the intelligence and character to succeed and will be liked by the people 

interacting with him. 

Message [1846] referenced by [2007fa:722]. First Message by BonzoIsGod is [34]. 

[1869] Geo: graded B– The meaning of the statement, “The dissolution of all commodities 

into labor-time is no greater an abstraction, and is no less real, than the dissolution of 


all organic bodies into air,” is that even though the abstraction of transforming commodities 

into labor time is difficult, it is possible because it is from the labor-time that the commodity 

takes on its true from. It is a “real” abstraction just like the abstraction of transforming 

organic bodies into air because one can break down the ‘substance’ or composition of a 

commodity’s value into different elements. One of the elements of course is labor time. The 

annotations state that “the reduction of all commodities to the expenditure of human laborpower 

contained in them is a real abstraction made in society whenever there is commodity 

production.” It is such abstractions that allow us to see better what elements determine commodity 

value which plays a vital role in capitalist modes of production. 

Hans: Your theory according to which one of the elements of a commodity’s value is of course labor-time sounds 

like the cost-theory of value which I tried to criticize in [1387] and elsewhere. 

Final Grading Note by Hans: You made some interesting contributions, but they do not have to do enough with 

Marx’s theory. I already said this in response to your [544]. 

Message [1869] referenced by [2007fa:722]. First Message by Geo is [98]. 

[1953] Sonja: graded B The dissolution of all organic bodies into air implies a most 

extreme reduction to a basic form. Dissolving commodities into labor time is reducing them 

to their most basic form, one that is common to all commodities. Since many degrees of 

labor power can be put into the making of a commodity, it must be reduced or abstracted 

into something that is common to all commodity production: that is the basic expenditure 

of human brain, muscle, etc. Hans states that the process of transforming organic bodies 

into air is what makes this abstraction real. What makes the abstraction of a commodity into 

labor time real is that it is made in society every time a commodity is produced and human 

labor power is used. 

Hans: Marx did not try to find the most basic form of commodities, but he was looking for something all commodities 

have in common which would justify why all commodities can be turned into the same thing, money, on 

the market. 

The process of transforming organic bodies into air has no direct connection with the dissolution of all commodities 

into labor-time; it was only used by Marx as another example explaining the concept of a real abstraction. 

Message [1953] referenced by [2007fa:722]. First Message by Sonja is [935]. 

[1954] Hans: Human labor as a real abstraction. This question takes us back to chapter 

One, therefore let us quickly recapitulate Marx’s argument there. Marx’s starting point 

was the exchange-relations between commodities, from which Marx inferred that there is 

something equal in the commodities. Think of it this way: on the market we see that all 

commodities can be turned into the same thing and can be bought with the same thing, 

namely money. This ritual on the surface only makes sense if there is indeed something 

equal which all commodities share. And then Marx said: yes, there is something which all 

commodities have in common, namely, they all are the products of labor. 

Marx therefore arrived at labor by a sort of conclusion which in critical realism is known 

as a second-order argument. Marx already knew that commodities had to have something 

in common when he set out to find this common thing. But when he found the thing which 

they do have in common it turned out that this thing looks a little different than what he 

had expected. His expectation was not only that it is something all commodities have in 

common, but also that it is something homogeneous. Unfortunately, the only thing which 

the commodities have in common is labor, and labor is not homogeneous.


Therefore Marx makes a second step and reduces all labor to abstract human labor. The 

problem with abstract human labor is that it does not exist as such. Every labor process is 

some particular concrete labor, you can repair a car engine or bake a cake or write a computer 

program but you cannot sit down and perform abstract labor. This is a problem for Marx’s 

realism. If something has real effects, it must itself be real and not just something which we 

can make up in our minds by the thought process called “abstraction.” 

The way out of this dilemma is the concept of a real abstraction. This is an abstraction 

which is not made in someone’s brain but an abstraction made in reality. As an example of 

a real abstraction Marx brings the dissolution of all organic compounds into air. 

A student of chemistry learns that an important class of chemicals called “organic compounds” 

are composed of molecules that have lots of C and H atoms in them and just a 

sprinkling of other kinds of atoms. For the sake of the argument here forget about these 

other atoms and assume they only consist of C and H atoms linked together in different 

ways. This is an abstraction, it is the reduction of the many organic compounds to something 

simple they have in common. At first this is only a mental abstraction: we know this 

about the organic compounds. 

But when there is a fire, then nature itself makes this abstraction: The C atoms combine 

with oxygen to form CO2, and the H atoms combine with oxygen to form to H2O. I.e., in 

the fire, the organic materials are dissolved into carbon dioxide and water vapor or, as Marx 

says, into air. Fires can be called “real abstractions” because they transform the motley 

variety of organic compounds into the same simple mixture of gasses. 

(By the way, these chemicals are called organic compounds because originally it was 

thought that only living beings could produce such chemicals.) 

The last thing we have to decipher is therefore: how is the dissolution of all commodities 

into labor-time a real abstraction? For this look what Marx wrote in the sentence immediately 

preceding the sentence quoted in in the question: 

This reduction (namely, the reduction of labor to abstract human labor) 

takes the form of an abstraction, but it is an abstraction that is made every 

day in the social process of production. 

If you are at work, then you do not always do the same thing, one minute you perform 

one kind of activity, and the next minute a very different activity. And if you change jobs, 

things get even more different. And your twin brother, who has the same capabilities and 

talents as you, has a completely different job and performs completely different labor. This 

means, the commonality of all labors is not just an idea in someone’s head, but it is practical 

reality and therefore can have real effects. 

Finally one word why the dissolution of commodities into labor-time is no greater an abstraction 

than the dissolution of organic compounds into air: the knowledge that all organic 

compounds consist of atoms which you can also find in air is an abstraction, but it is not a 

great abstraction in the sense that it does not move far beyond reality, since the composition 


of the organic compounds is a real aspect of them. In the same way, the reduction of commodities 

to labor-time is not a great abstraction since it took indeed labor-time to produce 

the commodities. 

(I have used my [2004fa:34] for part of this answer.) 

Message [1954] referenced by [1945] and [2007fa:722]. First Message by Hans is [33]. 


1997WI, 79 in 1997sp, 74 in 1997ut, 80 in 1998WI, 86 in 1999SP, 98 in 2002fa, 114 in 

2004fa, 128 in 2007SP, 132 in 2008fa, 141 in 2010fa, 161 in 2011fa, and 160 in 2012fa: 

Exam Question 115 What is the difference between labor and labor-power? 

[256] Synergy: (graded A) Labor and labor-power are differentiated by the specialization 

of labor. Even though I may specialize in making computers, I could also, given the proper 

training, perform the labor of making cars. Therefore, I have the potential (labor-power) to 

make cars, but my specialty (labor) is making computers. Labor-power is the potential labor, 

labor is the work I already know and do to build my commodity. Submission [2004fa:199] in 

the archives gives a great analogy of this, comparing the labor-power to kinetic and potential 

energy. One has to be developed before it can be expended. Hans’s reply to this made it more 

clear; that labor-power is the force that drives labor. Without labor-power there would be no 

labor at all. It goes to say that my specialization of labor is of value to a capitalist who would 

pay me to perform that specialized labor, but the specialization comes from my labor-power. 

It can be compared to a student fresh out of college. When this student graduates he/she 

will have used their labor-power to get a job–their potential to perform the duties of that job. 

The capitalist that hires them is then benefiting from his/her labor-power, while he/she will 

benefit from their labor through the wages they receive from performing that labor. 

Hans: This is a question labeled “exam question” in the Annotations. These questions are usually quite easy and 

therefore are ungraded if submitted as homeworks. Although your answer would deserve a full grade, I must adhere 

to my rules to keep it ungraded. 


[590] Rudy: graded B+ weight 50% Labor-power is an abstraction of Labor. Laborpower 

is more homogeneous than concrete labor, providing something equal inside commodities 

for equal exchange. 

Hans: This answer is too short-hand and assumes too much for an exam question. The purpose of this question is 

to clarify the definitions of labor and labor-power. An answer should therefore define both labor and labor-power. 

Message [590] referenced by [593]. Next Message by Rudy is [836]. 

[593] DarkKnight: graded A More on Test Question 115. I think Rudy’s answer [590] 

is missing a few details that bear mentioning. He says, “Labor-power is more homogeneous 

than concrete labor, providing something equal inside commodities for equal exchange.” 

Regarding the homogeneity of labor-power, Hans states in the Annotations that there are 

some differences in labor-power between individual workers, due to differences in the laborpower’s 

development (p. 60). A worker’s level of experience, for example, will make his 

labor more valuable. Another factor could be the talent level of each worker. Notwithstanding 

the differences, Marx believed they were relatively small, and therefore have less impact 

on the market than it would seem. Conveniently, society acts as though the labor from different 

individuals put into identical commodities is equal. So, Rudy’s conclusion is correct: 

they are exchangeable.


Hans: You are putting your finger on an interesting feature of Marx’s theory. Strictly speaking the equalization 

of all commodities on the market would only be justified if all labor-powers were equal. In reality they are not 

entirely equal, they are, say, only 95% equal. This is a good enough fit between surface and underlying production 

conditions for markets to function. 



in 1999SP, 93 in 2000fa, and 93 in 2001fa: 

Question 117 Does skilled labor (i.e., labor for which schooling and training is necessary, 

for instance the labor of an engineer) produce more value per hour than unskilled labor (like 

the labor of a janitor)? Explain! 



right now until Tuesday morning, November 29, at 3 am. 

This particular question has been discussed a lot in the archives. See for instance my 

[2001fa:41] and [1999SP:47]. These two answers look contradictory but they can be reconciled. 

Here I am repeating the list of all the homework questions assigned until Tuesday morning 

3 am: 

(81), (117), (129), (185), 375, 377, 590, 601 

Those in parentheses are not in the Annotations, but you can see their text in the emails I 

am sending out today. 


[1600] Rudy: graded A More value per hour. Context is an important factor in answering 

this question. The question does not ask if the commodity the labor produces has more 

value, neither does it ask which is more valuable to society. The question is whether or not 

skilled labor produces more value per hour than unskilled labor. The problem is, how do we 

compare labor-powers? It seems the context Marx uses as a solution is that the difference 

cannot be qualitative, but only quantitative (as to how much value is produced per hour, even 

though labor-powers cannot be compared quantitatively). 

Considering this context, skilled workers produce more value per hour quantitatively; not 

because more labor is going into each hour per individual worker, but because the labor used 

to train the worker is added in as well. The annotations use the example of the training 

needed for a heart surgeon. Hans’s [2001fa:41] is an explanation of how a heart surgeon 

produces more value per hour than, in this case, a group of fast-food workers. He states, 

“The labor of a surgeon creates more value per hour only because he had to spend so much 

time studying medicine and being trained as a doctor.” The annotations explain that the 

value per hour ratio would become greater as one adds in the labor by teachers and the labor 

needed to produce training materials and equipment. 

In these terms Marx explains that “...a smaller amount of complicated labor is equal to 

a bigger amount of simple labor.” Therefore as the skilled labor is reduced to multiples of 


unskilled simple labor, the result is a quantitative greater amount of value per hour, though 

qualitatively, labor-power is still generally equal. 

Hans: The market equates all commodities to money, i.e., makes them quantitatively comparable and therefore 

qualitatively equal. Marx is looking for an underlying element in production which is also quantitatively comparable 

and qualitatively equal. Labor-power almost fits the bill: most labors in society can be performed by almost 

any worker (with the proper training). And even those labor-powers which are qualitatively different (the labor of 

an great artist and scientist) will somehow be reduced to some quantitative multiple of simple labor. 


[1603] PAE: I definitely think that more skilled labor positions produce more value per 

hour than positions, which are less skilled and I think the education that goes into obtaining 

these positions has a lot to do with it. Even though I believe all labor no matter how skilled 

or unskilled is vital to any business and society who hopes to succeed there is a difference 

in value being produced. 

When we look at engineers, doctors, teachers, and many others, the time that is put in, in 

order for them to obtain those jobs, helps them produce more value hourly. Almost anyone 

given enough time could figure out how to do a doctor’s job but the fact that a doctor has 

gone to school makes him/her so much more efficient at doing that job. Therefore they are 

able to be more efficient and get more done per hour than a normal person would be able 

to do. Also I believe without the high skilled labor positions the lower/unskilled positions 

would not be available. A hospital could survive without a janitor or maintenance worker 

but could not survive without doctors. To me this signifies the higher value per hour, which 

skilled positions create. 

Now if you look at unskilled positions the same could probably not be said. I think many 

of us could take over the position of a janitor and be able to come close if not match the work 

per hour they were doing. In addition while it is evident we need those positions a company 

can live without them in the short run and in some cases maybe the long run. 

Hans: You are looking too much at the whole and its interconnections. The value created by a laborer is something 

very individualistic. Individuals are very versatile. They can produce many different things, and they can also 

produce in different ways: either something which does not need special training, or something for which many 

years of schooling is needed. How they allocate their time can be adjusted, but one thing is fixed, namely, the 

number of workers available in the society. This is why the total labor time, including schooling, matters for the 

value of the output. 


[1605] Zone: graded A When looking at the difference between skilled and unskilled 

laborers in the marketplace, they produce the same amount of value per hour but are not 

compensated the same financially. When looking at the skilled laborer, the worker has invested 

time and training to perform the job. The unskilled worker is able to do his job with 

no training. Therefore, the skilled laborer has more abstract-labor in each hour of work performed. 

The time the skilled worker invests in training is not considered the value here. If 

you look at the amount of value produced over the lifetime of each worker they should equal 

out because the skilled laborer was investing the time it took to learn the skill, while the 

unskilled laborer was creating value. Per hour of work, each individual ends up creating the 

same amount of labor even though they have different skill levels over the lifetime of working. 

The reason one might think that the skilled laborer creates more value is the difference 

of wages they are paid. The reasons for this arise because of the way the Capitalist society


works. Laborers are not paid by the amount of value they create but are paid by other market 

conditions such as monopolies, supply and demand of the skill, and barriers on education. 

Final Grading Note by Hans: Always substantive and thoughtful contributions from which others could learn. I 

also appreciated your detailed responses to the contributions of others which showed that you read them carefully. 

Message [1605] referenced by [1613]. First Message by Zone is [221]. 

[1606] Bosox: Marx says that a smaller amount of skilled labor is equal to a bigger 

amount of simple labor. The difference in value is a qualitative not quantitative difference. 

One engineer will produce more value than a janitor, each laborer provides value but Marx 

is explaining that the simple labor, janitor duties, are of less value qualitatively than an 

engineer’s skilled labor. 

Hans: It is just the opposite: value is a homogeneous mass, it is only capable of quantitative differences. 


[1607] Pete: graded B+ There are so many variables to this question and the answer. 

One variable is experience. Does the janitor have years and years of experience while the 

engineer just graduated? Is one type of labor needed more than another? Would you trust 

your power systems running through your neighborhood created by an engineer that has 

only done one project or would you want your children go to a school that is very clean and 

sanitized? 

Of course we know the answers to these question. We must find a way to compare the 

two. 

Time is one way. The years it takes to become an engineer is about 4x the years it takes 

to scrub floors and take out trash. 

Knowledge is another way. Almost anyone can clean floors, take out trash, clean blackboards 

(boy does that date me) do minor repares. This is not true for learning the skills of 

the engineer. Not everyone can do the math or understand design. 

The last is preference. Some janitors hate what they do, some would not think of doing 

anything else. The same for the engineer. 

As for pay the engineer can do less for more. For knowledge the janitor can get the 

knowledge faster. For preference, who knows. 

I think that there are so many variables that this question needs far too much clairfication 

to determine. It is just like Gold and currency. 

Hans: You are approaching this problem as a mainstream economist would: by constructing a demand function and 

a supply function for the labors of janitor and engineer. In Marx’s theory, demand and supply are the mechanisms 

which enforce the law of value, but the tendencial outcome of the competitive struggles can be discovered by an 

abstract kind of reasoning which goes beneath the surface. 

Final Grading Note by Hans: Your answers are usually well reasoned and clearly presented, but you tend to think 

through the problems on your own terms, using concepts that seem reasonable to you, without enough attention to 

the theoretical and conceptual framework Marx was using. As you say in [1599], using someone else’s framework 

takes “a lot of reading and piecing together.” 


[1613] Tesa: graded A Doctor vs Teacher. Strictly observing the labor theory of value, 

the value of labor for a skilled laborer is equal to that of the unskilled laborer, after the 

conversion allowing for time spent in study or training. For example, if person A takes a 

year for training, then works using that training for 30 years, their value produced is worth 


the same as person B who works for 31 years without training. But in practice it is interesting 

to note the contradictions that are found that demonstrate that the value of the labor is not 

equal. 

One example that can be seen is wages. As Zone says in [1605] “The reason one might 

think that the skilled laborer creates more value is the difference of wages they are paid.” 

The most obvious stereotype is the doctor vs the teacher. Both go through rigorous study 

and training and continue their studies throughout their career yet their wages are grossly 

different. The value of their labor is equal but is never compensated equally. On the other 

hand, I have heard the value of a thing defined as “whatever somebody is willing to pay for 

it.” In which case, the doctor’s labor is worth much more than the teacher’s. 

Hans: The aphorism that the value of something is “whatever somebody is willing to pay for it” is part of the 

capitalistic smokescreen hiding exploitation. Don’t let it trip you up. The rest of your answer is excellent. 

Next Message by Tesa is [1836]. 

[1615] MK: Incongruity relating to the difference between skilled and unskilled labor 

would likely lead to a collapse of the necessary division of labor. It would become less 

beneficial to the laborer to acquire a skill–and as a result, many skills would disappear. Thus, 

Marx’s theory of value does in fact suggest that one hour of skilled labor represents more 

value than one hour of unskilled labor. The difference in value imputed in the development 

and acquisition of one’s skill. 

What is interesting is the labor in general suggests production of a commodity– one that 

will be exchanged publicly somehow. Yet many of us view our education as something done 

both privately and for personal gain. It is not often that I view my educational goals as an 

means end for a greater value of my labor product. 

I believe that we can attribute much of the earning difference, say between doctors and 

teachers, to supply and demand. There are a great many teachers, but far too few physicians. 

Hans: Interesting thoughts. 


[1622] Dandy: Skilled labor. To answer the question one must look at different aspects 

of skilled labor vs. simple labor. Labor-power is similar between the two groups, but not 

quite equal. Labor-power may differ in development (schooling, training, etc.) but the value 

of the commodity comes from human labor in general. The commodity may be a product of 

complicated labor, but its value is a calculation based on simple labor. 

Marx says that the cost of production of simple labor power amounts to the cost of existence 

and propagation of the worker. The price of this cost constitutes wages. Wages that the 

laborer receives are nothing more than the price of his labor-power and are called the price 

of labor. The shorter the time required for labor development (schooling and training) the 

smaller the cost of production is for the employer and the price of his labor-power is lower. 

When labor is reduced to its simplest level, the price of commodities and their competitive 

forces, all labor becomes equal. Even though this is the case I agree with DuckSoup 

[2001fa:162-4] “Even if you assemble 1,000 construction workers, and give them all the 

time they need, they still won’t be able to do the work of a doctor”. 

Hans: I agree with you and DuckSoup (and therefore disagree with PAE [1603] who said: “Almost anyone given 

enough time could figure out how to do a doctor’s job”). Labor-powers are not equal; the labor-power of a doctor


is qualitatively different from that of a construction worker. But since many construction workers could become 

doctors if they spent enough time to get the education, and since the cost of this education can ultimately be reduced 

to labor-time as well, it is possible to reduce this qualitative difference into a quantitative difference of more labortime. 

Your second paragraph is superfluous and confusing: the question is asking about the value created by skilled 

labor, not the wage paid for skilled labor. 

Finally a brief remark about your first paragraph: value is not a calculation but, in Marx’s theory, it is something 

real that exists out there. One can try to calculate its magnitude, but this does not make value itself a calculation, 

just as the diameter of the earth is not a calculation. 

Final Grading Note by Hans: All your submissions are substantial works, some of them are extremely good, and 

your participated consistently. You sometimes have trouble delivering your work in the assigned time slots, and the 

work is sometimes uneven. Perhaps this simply means that you do not have enough time. 

First Message by Dandy is [343]. 

[1643] Parmenio: graded B+ So far there seems to be a consensus that skilled labor, that 

of an engineer or doctor, is more valuable than unskilled labor, such as a janitor. I would 

agree with what has been said on the subject so far also, the skilled has spent more of his 

time learning a skill than a janitor does learning theirs, and there is a greater need for skilled 

labour than there is unskilled labour. 

However not all doctors get paid the same too, for instance there are doctors that live in 

3rd world countries that don’t charge as much as doctors in developed countries, and the 

same with engineers. I have read that there are people that charter flights to India to get a 

surgery they need from the UK, they would rather pay for the plan ticket and the full cost of 

the surgery in India than wait on the UK’s waitlist for a few years in which they might die. 

But the skill set for the needed surgery is the same, not to mention the doctors sometimes 

were trained in the same westen schools. However you might not have the same benefits, like 

the capacity to sue if something goes wrong in the surgery, or the most advanced facilities 

too. 

We see the same with engineers, companies outsource certain engineering jobs to less 

devoloped countries because they are cheaper, however sometimes the work might not be up 

to par. SueGirl’s husband works as a software engineer who had to fix some program that 

was outsourced [1138]. 

The dichotomy doesn’t have to be to underdeveloped and developed too, there is a vast 

discrepancy between the doctor or attorney who lives in LA or NYC-vs-SLC or Boise. The 

skill levels are the same, the facilities are the same, but they pay differently because of the 

relative prices one needs to live in the areas. 

Also there is a vast discrepancy for certain specialties withing a givin profession. Surgeons 

get paid better than pediatricians. However in order to get certified as a surgeon you 

have to get more residency training than a pediatrician, so even though the surgeon gets 

more, they also had to spend a lot more time getting trained. 

Hans: You are discussing how much the workers get paid instead of how much value they produce per hour. 

According to Marx, these are two very different things. 

Regarding the question how much they get paid, I don’t think that “there is a greater need for skilled labor”, but 

instead I would say: “it is easier to depress the wages of unskilled laborers by hiring someone off the street.” Getting 

a skill is somewhat an alternative to forming a union: it makes you less vulnerable to the excesses of exploitation. 

(Although things seem to be changing here with outsourcing skilled labor from India.) 

Next Message by Parmenio is [1860]. 


[1649] Ace: graded A– There seems to be many contradicting answers to this question. 

Tesa and Zone both think that the value per hour is the same but both have been mislead 

I think. Comparing a teacher to a doctor is like comparing a high school graduate with a 

student that receives a bachelor’s degree or even a graduate degree. I think that the college 

graduates have the upper hand on the value per hour produced. A doctor goes to 4 to 8 years 

more schooling to receive a status of a practitioner than does a high school P.E. teacher. I 

have to agree with Bosox and Rudy mostly because they pulled the quote from the annotations 

saying that “...a smaller amount of complicated labor is equal to a bigger amount of 

simple labor.” I think that this sums it up, that someone with more training will receive a 

higher wage because they are producing more value per hour. In this case the capitalist can 

still pay the higher wage and still have a large surplus value at the end of the day. When the 

janitor makes a higher wage that will be the day that he produces enough per hour for his 

capitalist to pay him that wage. 

Hans: According to Marx, all workers, even janitors, produce far more value per hour than they get paid. 

Final Grading Note by Hans: You have an excellent understanding of the text. But while Marx thinks that the 

contradictions of capitalism are irreconcilable and will eventually either lead to the overturn of capitalism or to a 

barbaric state of existence, you seem to think that the differing interests can be harmonized. I can only wish for all 

of us that Marx is wrong and you are right. 


[1669] Fidel: In my inculcated capitalist worldview the answer seems obvious; skilled 

labor definitely produces more value per hour than unskilled labor. Why else would we pay 

Doctors so much money? That surface answer gives way after more consideration. We have 

been trained and trained over the years to see value as price or pay. In other words “market 

value” but not even the market recognizes this. A good salesmen will often earn more money 

than an electrical engineer. A dock worker more than a professor. 

Marx says that complicated labor “counts” as multiplied simple labor. Hans further clarifies 

this by pointing out that “counts” is not the same as “is”. The “counts” is the market at 

work. 

In the annotations Hans explains that labor has equal value but the market assigns a multiple 

to skilled labor versus unskilled labor. Capital is a critique of capitalism. Thus it is 

also a critique of how the market assigns market value which is very much in contrast to 

labor value. So what again is value? Value is derived from labor power. Everett remarked in 

[2001fa:163-3] that “when linen weaving is done by hand it contains more value than when 

it is woven by machine”. 

Therefore value is the same whether it is a janitor or engineer doing the labor. It is not 

the commodity they produce but the labor power that went into producing it. 

Hans: The equality of labor is not an ethical principle, but it is built into the structure of a market system to treat 

all labor as homogeneous with only quantitative (instead of qualitative) differences. This comes from the simple 

fact that the market equates all commodities to money, which is also only capable of quantitative, not qualitative, 

differences. 

Next Message by Fidel is [1956].


[1698] Jimmie: graded B+ weight 30% (As Submitted:) Yes, because packed 

Yes, because packed into that hour of skilled into that hour of skilled labor there is hours 

labor there is hours and hours of training. 

The training needed to make a skilledlaborer, 

represents itself in the increased and hours of training. The training needed 

value produced by each hour of their labor to make a skilled-laborer, represents itself 

time. Hence, an hour of a heart surgeon’s in the increased value of their labor time. 

labor produces inherently more value than 

that of a janitor’s. Hence, an hour of a heart surgeon’s labor is 

inherently more valuable than that of a janitor’s. 

Hans: Good concise summary, but your original formulation made the error of confusing the value created by each 

hour of labor with the value produced by each hour of labor. 

Message [1698] referenced by [1544]. Next Message by Jimmie is [1757]. 

[1701] TriPod: I would say there is no possible way that skilled labor produces more 

value per hour than unskilled labor. I will use myself as an example. I was a teen father. I 

had my daughter my senior year of high school. When I graduated I told myself that I would 

never have a chance unless I went to college and got good grades. For two years I worked 

my tail off and got good grades. I also worked full time trying to make a living. I worked for 

a foreclosure company and after two years I tried my luck in the mortgage Industry. I will 

tell you I have been very successful and made great money. (PS I didn’t need any education 

to do well in the industry so I was unskilled.) I continued to go to school because I felt like I 

had worked so hard and it would be pointless to quit now. Now I have been in the Mortgage 

Industry for four and half years. I own my company and have eleven employees and not one 

of them has very much education. I will tell you every one of them makes more money than 

most college graduates. I am now graduating this semester after four and half years and I 

didn’t need any education to get to where I am. I will guarantee I make more money than 

doctors and lawyers do their first couple years out of school. My answer is no, skilled labor 

does not produce more than unskilled labor, we just use our labor differently. 

Hans: I enjoyed reading your story, but you cannot judge the value created by an hour of labor by the income of 

the person doing the work. It is basic for Marx’s theory that there is a difference between the two. 


[1709] Xerho: graded A Skilled labor vs. unskilled labor. The age-old question of why 

skilled labor, if it is, more valuable than unskilled labor. In reading through past archives, 

it was interesting to see that many times what we logically think is the reason, isn’t always 

what Marx wrote about. 

This semester’s [1387] posting helped remind me of the true source of value - labor is 

the source of surplus value. “In Marx’s theory, the missing link is labor: it is true that labor 

adds to the cost of the article, but it also adds to the value of the article. And unlike the 

means of production, the amount labor adds to the value is bigger than the amount it adds to 

the cost.” I had originally thought that skilled labor increased the productivity of the laborer, 

thus altering the means of production and increasing the surplus value. This still holds true, 

but a more simple answer seems to work just fine, too. 

[2001fa:41] made the point that skilled labor produced more value per hour than unskilled 

because of the training that took place before the labor was performed that qualified the 


laborer as skilled. The value that labor added to the article must represent both the labor 

performed, and the labor that went into training. Unskilled labor does not have the prealteration 

labor to be added, therefore skilled labor DOES produce more value per hour than 

unskilled labor. 

Final Grading Note by Hans: In [1876] you say that you learned something during this Semester. I agree with 

you. What you say here is very good evidence. 


[1718] Surferboy: TriPod, in response to your [1701] 

The industry you work in has definite acquired skills. University education doesn’t always 

equal skilled labor. Mortgage work is actually very complicated and requires that you 

obtain certain qualifications by the state to be able to be a broker. Thus, you had to prepare 

for exams to be able to go into your line of work. All of your employees I asume must 

have had to prepare and educate themselves to pass the exam. This is not comparable to 

the education that one may receive at a univeristy but it is still a form of education that lifts 

you above the fields of labor like janitorial work. It is totally obvious that because you have 

aquired certain skills that you produce more value per hour. If you close on one deal, one 

mortgage that is you will make more money than a janitor will make in 3 months most likely. 

Your mortgage skills enable you to produce more value per hour than that of an unskilled 

janitor. 

Next Message by Surferboy is [1729]. 

[1725] Legolas: This has been a very interesting questions to follow the responses. Unfortunately, 

I think we are leaning too far away from what Marx says. To begin, Marx explained 

the difference of human labor in that ‘mere men’ contain simple labor while the bourgousie 

contain a multiplied form of simple labor. However the market value does not always reflect 

the amount of skilled or unskilled labor, it merely reflects the value of the simple human 

labor put into the article. The exchange process is more likely to reflect the difference in 

labor as it the article is turned to a commodity through its value coming from human labor. 

Therefore, skilled labor does not contain more value than unskilled, only a different type of 

value. As Marx said in 134:3/o, “a smaller amount of complicated labor is equal to a bigger 

amount of simple labor.” 

I applaud Tripod for his success without a college degree, but remember that skilled labor 

does not equate education it equates skills, and you have acquired skills within your field, 

therefore you are a skilled worker and just because you are not a doctor or engineeer does 

not put one in the ‘unskilled’ category. The situation of 1000 dock workers given the time 

could not do the job of a doctor could be reversed to 1000 doctors given the time could not 

do the job of an astronaut.... skilled labor is necessary for any job, including a janitor, but 

the posting should say ‘less skill required’ rather than ‘unskilled’ 

Hans: Marx certainly does not say that the bourgeois (capitalist) performs multiplied simple labor. The capitalist’s 

income comes from the unpaid labor of his employees. You apparently were referring to 134:3/o, please re-read 

it. The sentence “a smaller amount of complicated labor is equal to a bigger amount of simple labor” means the 

opposite of what you say it means. It means that (as far as the creation of value is concerned) skilled and simple 

labor are only quantitatively different, not qualitatively. 

Next Message by Legolas is [1726]. 

Question 125 is 124 in 2004fa:


Question 125 If the physical thing is not the commodity but only the “body” or the “bodily 

form” of the commodity, how should then the commodity itself be defined? 

[222] Mason: I believe that what Marx is saying that “the body of the commodity, i.e., 

the commodity as a physical object,” is of no real value to the producer at all until he can 

exchange it with a consumer. And this is where I believe the commodity is defined. But 

it is not defined until the consumer and the producer come together and agree upon the 

value of the commodity. It is indeed a social entity. For example, if you make 5 pairs 

of shoes and no one buys them, they will just sit there as some leather, rubber soles, and 

laces. But when a consumer comes and buys them, now you can take that money and buy 

some wheat for example from the money that you obtained from your commodity. The 

shoes now have become much more than just some leather, rubber soles, and laces. The 

shoes itself had no significance to the producer, “because the commodity producers do not 

produce commodities for the sake of their use values (they themselves don’t need them)” 

(page 70). And this is where I believe the commodity is defined. A commodity is a means of 

money making and survival for the producer. Through these commodities you can achieve 

purchasing power, thus I believe that they in turn become your livelihood, “useful objects and 

carriers of value” (page 70). Because when you trade these commodities with a consumer 

they become, as Marx says, “twofold.” They are objects of utility and also, at the same time, 

depositories of value. And this is what makes the commodities much more valuable than 

just their use-value. 

Hans: This is good, but you should have taken a little more time improving the presentation of your thoughts. 

Message [222] referenced by [288]. Next Message by Mason is [505]. 

[228] Thugtorious: graded A– What the heck is a “commodity”? The phrase “commodity” 

has been used since the first page of Kapital, but we really have yet to define the 

word itself. We have a working definition that Marx adds bits and pieces to throughout 

the pages. As the question states, a “commodity” is not the physical object or thing. This 

is merely a vessel, or conduit for all of the elements embedded in the production process. 

Not physical elements, but: labor power, abstract labor, use-value, exchange-values, formvalues, 

etc. The physical object is the carrier of these elements. So, we yet again are back 

to the question: what is a commodity? Well, in my eyes, the idea of “commodity” is the 

abstract summation of all of these things; a “commodity” itself is more of an idea rather 

than a concrete object. For instance, a wheel in prehistoric society was an object with a 

use, but was not a “commodity.” However, you transplant that same object into capitalistic 

production and exchange, the object then embodies all of the elements of production and the 

relations of that mode of production and society; the object becomes a “commodity.” 

In reading Kapital, and other Marxian texts, Marx looked more towards meanings, true 

significance, and what is beneath the exterior rather than the exterior itself. For example, 

with language, when you say a word, you might not necessarily comprehend what that word 

truly means, symbolizes, connotes. However, the person hearing that word is strongly influenced 

by those mere vibrations of your vocal chords. Why? That is where Marx begins his 

analysis. So, it isn’t necessarily the word “commodity” or the object itself that matters, it is 

what the word means, what’s beneath the surface, and what went into producing said object; 

that is a “commodity.” 

Hans: A commodity is something quite concrete; it is not an idea. 



[252] Camhol: The commodity itself should be defined as the consumer conversion value, 

since that is what the consumer does is convert it from its physical form to something their 

self-interest deems valuable. Ex: Petroleum in its physical form is the liquid viscous natural 

form, to the conversion energy form of horsepower in the car for movement. Ex2: An apple 

in its physical form is converted twice, once for its emotional pleasure to the consumer and 

then converted again for the sugar energy made by the body for movement. It is because of 

a “what, how, why” effect (meaning what is converted, how it is converted, and why it is 

converted) that the value is determined in the market of consumers 

Hans: The world is not as connected as you seem to think. You are not paying the grocery store for apples because 

your body metabolizes apples into energy. In Marx’s theory, you are paying for apples because human labor has 

been used to produce these apples. 


[288] JJ: graded A What a commodity is. A commodity is a commodity when it can be 

exchanged for something other than itself. Mason in [222] rightly recognizes that producers 

do not produce commodities for their use-values, but for their value (i.e. their exchange 

values). This exchange relationship is crucial in defining its own identity as a commodity. No 

doubt, a commodity has physical characteristics or a “bodily form”, this is just the interface 

and not the commodity itself. What matters to the producer is that he “embed(s) abstract 

human labor” into his commodity, so that he may obtain “access to the things he needs” (pg. 

72). 

Hans: I think we have beaten the horse to death now; if anyone else submits an answer to this question, I expect 

them to say something really new. 

Next Message by JJ is [491]. 

Multiple Choice Question 127 When Marx writes that the commodity needs a value form 

he means by this: 

(a) Commodities would not have value if they could not be sold. 

(b) In capitalism the value of a person is determined by how many commodities he or she 

has. 

(c) Surface relations must exist which allow the practical agents, especially the producers of 

the commodity, to get access to (benefit from) the value in the commodity. 

(d) Many commodities could not be sold at their given prices if they did not have fancy 

packaging etc. suggesting to the buyers that they are something valuable. 

[728] MK: C 


Question 128 is 127 in 2004fa, 151 in 2008fa, 157 in 2009fa, 166 in 2010fa, and 996 in 

2012fa: 

Question 128 If a commodity is only produced because of its value, why did Marx not say 

that commodities come to the world in the form of values? 

[213] Demosthenes: graded A The Commodity is Born. To begin, a reminder: what 

Marx did say, was that “Commodities come into the world in the form of use-values or 

articles, as iron, linen, corn etc. (138:1).”


Hans, in his Annotations, discusses the comparison between the birthing of the commodity 

and the birth of a human baby. Let us take this discussion a little deeper in order to 

answer the question at hand. 

We live in a very complex and developed society. When a child comes into the world, 

however, it has no awareness of the twinings and bindings of the social network around 

itself. It understands, at least instinctively, the basic requirements for life. It knows hunger, 

warmth, pain. Not until the child grows does it begin to learn of the workings of the society 

in which it lives. It eventually will become a working part of this society, and ultimately one 

who will pass this social construct on to a future generation. 

It is true that in our present social situation, the commodity is only produced because of 

its value. It does not provide a use-value for the producer, only the hope that it will provide 

some use-value for another, and by doing so will procure for the producer the things of which 

he stands in need. 

But what if we were able to unknot the economic entanglement in which we are viewing 

the commodity? As an infant only understands its fundamental needs for sustaining life, 

such is the pure purpose of the commodity: to fulfill those needs. Only when we place this 

article in the framework of the myriad of commodities in the world around it does the concept 

of exchange-value come into play. Thus, the commodity comes into the world simply as a 

use-value, and grows into an exchange value as it realizes its place in the sphere around it. 

Message [213] referenced by [871]. Next Message by Demosthenes is [217]. 

[233] Overlord: Marx does state that a commodity is “born” as a use-value not a value. 

According to my interpretation of Marx’s writings, without use-values there would be no 

value to the producer. The reason to produce a commodity is to eventually reap the benefits 

of its value. In order to reap the benefits of a commodity’s value it must have some usevalue 

to society. Society will determine the level of use-value that a particular commodity 

has. If all commodities came to the world in the form of values then there would be no 

reason for production to bring out their use-values. This in effect would null the commodity 

because according to the annotations the purpose of production is to give a commodity its 

use value. A commodity without any use-value has no value to the producer and hence is 

not a commodity. 

Hans: The value of a commodity is not the same thing as its usefulness to society. Something may have a high 

value (high labor content, be very expensive), but at the same time it may not be very useful to society, so that very 

little of it will be produced. 


[241] Gdubmoe: content B+ form 80% Marx did not say that commodities come to the 

world in the form of values because when the producers create the commodities’ bodily form 

it is useless if they have no need for it and if the commodity they created is not coveted it 

has no value form. If the consumers do not need the commodity produced then it serves no 

value to the producers in which the commodity was produced. The commodities are only 

produced for its value but if the commodity has no value in the market then the commodity 

only has one form of the “double-form”. Even if the producer created a commodity in which 

not to sell or trade, it can be of value if the producer created it for its own use. But if 

the producer created a commodity not for its own use and it has no value in the market it 


becomes a commodity only its “bodily form”. Hence, has no value when it comes into the 

world, Marx states it as a commodity, and not in the “form of value”. 

Hans: Very sloppy writing. Almost every sentence violates the rules of grammar. 

Message [241] referenced by [287]. Next Message by Gdubmoe is [699]. 

[287] Hans: “Being coveted” is not a value form. Let’s first clarify what Marx means 

when he says that the bodily form of the commodity it is use-value form. This simply means 

that, if you examine the commodity as a physical thing, you can find out what it can be used 

for. This examination may be just looking at it, or taking it into the fitting room and trying 

it on, or reading its technical specs, or taking it out for a test drive, etc. 

So far it’s easy. Now the next question is: what does Marx mean when he says that the 

commodity’s bodily form is not the value form of the commodity? Answer: the producer of 

the commodity produces it not for the sake of its use-value, but he uses his labor-time and 

skills to produce a use-value which he himself does not need, but which he wants to trade 

for other use-values which he does need. But by examining the commodity it is impossible 

to tell what other commodities the producer needs or should get for this commodity. 

Third question: why does a commodity need a value form? Because a systematic procedure 

is needed by which the producers can retrieve the labor they put into their commodity 

in form of a use-value which suits their needs. An institutional framework is needed that 

these millions of replacements can go on smoothly and without gridlock. 

This systematic procedure is the price tag of the commodity. This little piece of paper 

represents a powerful social mechanism. On the one hand, the price tag tells everybody who 

has money that they can have the commodity if they want to pay the amount specified in the 

price tag. On the other hand, the producer knows, when he gets this amount of money, that 

he can turn around and buy any other commodity with his money (as long as he has enough 

money to match the amount on their price tags). 

The two forms of the commodity are therefore simply (1) the commodity as a physical 

object and (2) its price tag. 

The producer of the commodity has full control over the use-value of the commodity, but 

not over the price which this commodity is able to fetch on the market. This is why Marx 

says: “commodities come into the world in the form of use-values.” They do not get their 

value form in the factory where they are produced, but they have to acquire it in their relation 

with other commodities. (Careful: they do get their value in production, but they get their 

value form outside the factory, in their relations with other commodities.) 

Gdubmoe writes in [241]: if the commodity is not coveted it has no value form. This 

looks at the issue too individualistically. The value form is a social mechanism through 

which it can be determined whether the labor spent on that commodity has been socially 

necessary (i.e., in Gdubmoe’s words, whether the commodity is coveted), or whether that 

labor should better be spent elsewhere. 


[748] Thugtorious: graded A Commodities don’t come into the world as values because 

they enter the world as use-values. You can physically examine a commodity and derive 

its uses (use-value). However, just by examining the object, you cannot determine what


the producer intends on trading that commodity for (its value). Therefore, the commodity’s 

bodily form is not its value form. During production, the commodity receives its value, but 

it does not receive its value-form until it enters the “surface” of the society or the market. 

On the surface, the commodity is put into relations with millions of other commodities and 

is equated vis-à-vis their abstract labor. So, the commodities are produced not for the usevalue 

to the producer, but for the potential to be traded for use-values needed by the producer. 

The commodities are not values until they are put into relations with other commodities. I 

originally used the analogy of the baby because the commodity does not receive its value 

until it is compared to other commodities. Much like the baby analogy, the commodity 

“learns” its value from interactions with other commodities on the surface. A commodity’s 

value is contingent upon its relationship to other commodities. Initially, immediately after 

production, the commodity has not had time to be related to other commodities. 

Hans: I like the connection with the Peter-and-Paul quote in your in-class version. You wrote: 

In the Peter-and-Paul quote, a “mirror-like” situation is depicted. With commodities, they do 

not see themselves as values until they are compared or interact with other commodities. The 

relative value-form acts as a mirror for the commodity. 

Message [748] referenced by [2009fa:474] and [2010fa:360]. Next Message by Thugtorious is [766]. 

[827] Avatar: graded A Despite saying a commodity is only produced because of its 

value, Marx did not say that commodities come into the world in the form of values because 

of the disparity between value and of “forms” of value. The form of value is how the value 

expresses itself on the surface, not the commodity’s value at the core. Marx defines a commodity 

as something that is produced for exchange and the word “exchange” is at the heart 

of why commodities do not come into the world in value forms; exchange value is form 

that value can take. The exchange value, for instance, is a form of value a commodity takes 

at the market when it comes into economic activity. A person can put concrete labor into 

something and give it value, but this happens at the core and is not something that can be 

seen. Marx said that commodities are “not transparent” which means that value we see in a 

commodity is the form the value takes, not the value that is endowed to it during production. 

The form of value is given to a commodity at the market, or on the surface and not its value 

when it “comes into the world.” 


[878] Diggity: graded B Marx uses the word ‘value’ a little bit differently than we may 

understand it. Value is used as meaning worth of a produced good as it relates to labor. If 

raw materials are left alone, the uses are very limited. The labor spent on producing these 

raw materials into commodities that can be used to satisfy a need, and maybe even a “want.” 

It is only after a raw material is transformed into a useful commodity does it have some sort 

of value. I feel it important to mention Marx’s analysis of a human entering into this world. 

He states that the birth of a human baby can relate to the evolving of a commodity into some 

sort of value. As stated in Annotations (pg 69), a birth of a baby is a culmination of complex 

social processes. A baby comes into this world not having the skills to communicate and 

to survive independently. Only through the aid of the parents and society does that baby 

develop into a useful “commodity.” Also, to go on with a more detailed explanation without 

relaying the whole story, Marx mentions the importance of looking at the connection in 

which things are looked at. The social relations are important in considering the actual 

product; the social relations of wheat, and not the grain of wheat itself. 


Hans: Marx does not think that the usefulness of a good is proportional to its labor content. 

Message [878] referenced by [879]. Next Message by Diggity is [879]. 

[891] Karlwho: graded A It all comes down the user of the commodity (the agent). The 

agent who uses the commodity sees the commodity as the use-value that can be obtained 

from the commodity. That is, the agent sees the use-value. However, the producer is not 

producing the commodity to obtain its use, but rather obtain its value. So the agent sees the 

commodity in term of its usefulness and the producer sees the commodity in terms of its 

value. The commodity, therefore, contains two values. I want to point out, the value of a 

commodity is dependent upon its use-value. Without the use value in the commodity there 

would be no value in the commodity. 

Next Message by Karlwho is [892]. 

[912] Tiny: Commodities are valued because they can either be sold or exchanged, not 

because they just came to the world in the form of value. 

Commodities have a common value-form which contrasts in the most striking manner 

with the motley natural forms of their use-values. The simplest value-relation is of one commodity 

to another commodity of a different kind. Formula x commodity A = y commodity 

B or: x commodity A is worth y commodity B. (Marx, 139) 

I feel there needs to be a need of exchange. A good example is given of the linen and 

yarn. The owner or holder of the item(s) need or want something in exchange for their item. 

Therefore, the commodity is given an exchange value. If neither person had any need for the 

other, there would be no need for exchange or value granted upon the items. 

The same commodity cannot, therefore, simultaneously appear in both forms in the same 

expression of value. It is not the latter commodity whose value is expressed. (Marx, 140). 

So, to me, in essence Marx may have known that a commodity doesn’t confer upon itself 

a form of value or specified value until a sale or exchange is made. A commodity may 

have an equivalency to another item that is different, but it’s not conscious until exchanged 

between two holders. 

There is more to an object or commodity having value, then saying it is so. 

Hans: At issue is not the need to exchange, but having the institutions for making this exchange, namely, money. 

Next Message by Tiny is [923]. 

Question 129 is 81 in 1997ut, 111 in 2002fa, and 114 in 2003fa: 

Question 129 What is the difference between the statement: “a commodity is a use-value 

and a product of labor” and the statement: “a commodity is a use-value and the congelation 

of abstract labor”? 



right now until Tuesday morning, November 29, at 3 am. 

This question is not in the Annotations, this is why I am sending this message here to the 

list. It should be on p. 70, where question 126 is right now, just after Marx’s text saying:


The commodity is, since the moment it is made, something twofold, usevalue 

and value, the product of useful labor and the congelation of abstract 

labor. 

Here is once more the list of all the homework questions assigned until Tuesday morning 

3 am: 

(81), (117), (129), (185), 375, 377, 590, 601 

Those in parentheses are not in the Annotations, but you can see their text in the emails I 

am sending out today. 


[1591] Aaron: The difference in the statement is that labor when employed by the capitalists 

with the means of production no longer is just abstract labor. It is applied in a uniform 

fashion and can be marketed into labor and commodities with use-value. 

Hans: You must be reading the text in a fairly impressionistic way if this is what you are getting out of it. Labor 

without the means of production to realize it is called “labor-power” by Marx, not “abstract labor.” 

Next Message by Aaron is [1635]. 

[1741] Sonja: content A form 98% The difference between these two statements is that 

the latter talks about a commodity’s value trough a commodity’s congelation of abstract 

labor. The first statement implies that a commodity is made because of its use-value to its 

producer, while the second statement asserts that the producer of a commodity must be able 

to exchange it for something else that has use-value for her. The congealed abstract labor 

is what gives a commodity its exchange value for other commodities, the goal commodity 

producers are after. 

Hans: I agree with everything you say except: there is nothing in the second statement saying that the commodity 

must have use-value to its producer. It just must have a use-value for someone in society. 

Saying “a commodity is congealed abstract labor” means that the producer put his labor into this commodity 

with the expectation of getting his labor back in the form of a different use-value. 

Next Message by Sonja is [1953]. 

Question 131 is 66 in 1995WI, 75 in 1995ut, 79 in 1996sp, 85 in 1997WI, 87 in 1997sp, 83 

in 1997ut, 113 in 2002fa, 116 in 2003fa, 150 in 2007fa, and 156 in 2008SP: 

Question 131 Why can commodities not express their values in their own use-values? (Note 

that we are not asking here why the value of a commodity is not determined by its use-value. 

The expression of value is not the same as the determination of value.) 

[324] MK: Value form. Marx writes– 

’Not an atom of matter enters into the objectivity of commodities as values; 

in this it is the direct opposite of the coarsely sensuous objectivity of commodities 

as physical objects. We may twist and turn a single commodity 

as we wish; it remains impossible to grasp it as a thing possessing value. 

However, let us remember that commodities possess an objective character 

as values only insofar as they are all expressions of an identical social substance, 

human labour, that their objective character as values is therefore 

purely social. From this it follows self-evidently that it can only appear in 

the social relation between commodity and commodity’. 


Marx reiterates the double character of the commodity– it (a commodity)has a material 

‘natural’ existence (objectively, it is a useful object) and , it (a commodity) has a nonmaterial 

‘social’ existence (objectively it is a value). 

With this distinction Marx furthers the conceptual use-value/value distinction; the material 

properties of the commodity are embodied in it and constitute its useful quality, yet it 

cannot be grasped in itself as a thing possessing value. (It is in fact human labor that gives 

(or gives realization) to the value of any said commodity.) 

Commodities are objectively commensurable only in so far as they express a social phenomenon 

which is of course the equalization of human labor. This equalization is effected 

not in production, but in exchange, when the labors of producers are realized as a relation 

between commodities. 

It follows that value is not a physiological substance but a ‘purely social’ concept. Thus, a 

commodity, does not come to express it value in its use value, but rather when it is exchanged 

against other commodities: the value of a commodity is represented in the bodily form of an 

equivalent commodity. 


Question 134 is 86 in 1997WI, 85 in 1997ut, 92 in 1998WI, 115 in 2002fa, 118 in 2003fa, 

133 in 2004fa, and 174 in 2010fa: 

Question 134 How does Marx’s statement in 138:2/o that a commodity’s value material 

“does not contain a single atom of physical matter” relate to his other statement in 177:3–4 

that “no chemist has ever discovered exchange-value in pearl or diamond.” Do they say the 

same thing or something different? 

[214] BonzoIsGod: graded A– Commodity Value and Exchange-Value. Marx’s statements 

are related in that both are asserting that a commodity’s value and exchange-value are 

not tangible items. “That so and so much abstract labor was used up in the production of 

the linen is not evident from its use-value” (Ehrbar, 72). It is a principle of society that one 

cannot reach out and touch or scientifically discover the value of an item. It is understood 

what an item’s value is, based on society’s practices. 

Hans: The value of an item cannot be determined up to 3 decimal places as its weight etc. But a Marxist would still 

say it can be investigated scientifically. Even if social science does not look like physics, it nevertheless deserves 

the name of “science.” 


Question 139 is 118 in 2002fa, 121 in 2003fa, 138 in 2004fa, and 156 in 2007SP: 

Question 139 Why did bourgeois economics never attempt to derive the genesis of the 

money form? 

[248] Dange: graded A– The money form. Bourgeois economists were not concerned 

with the origins of money because they were only concerned with the property of money 

and how much was readily available for exchange. The modern capitalists saw money as a 

form of wealth and power to put towards their advantage, and did not bother themselves to 

analyze what money really is.


The money form has been misinterpreted by the capitalists as having high value, which 

makes it difficult to analyze this form of exchange which truly has no value, only the value 

the individual places upon it. 

Hans: Something went wrong with the money. It is not, as you suggest in your second paragraph, the fault of the 

capitalists that they give it too much value. The money, which evolved naturally out of the commodity circulation, 

is practically so useful that people desired it for purposes other than circulation. From a slave, money turned into a 

master. 

Next Message by Dange is [373]. 


in 1997sp, 86 in 1997ut, 162 in 2007fa, and 186 in 2010fa: 

Question 142 What does Marx understand to be the riddle of money? And how does he 

solve this riddle in section 3? 

[257] Guerito: graded A The Birth of Money. What is the riddle of money? This can be 

answered with another question: Why can money buy everything? Yet, to fully understand 

the nature of the riddle, perhaps we must consider a few additional questions: What is 

money? Where did money come from? How has money evolved over time? Therein we 

discover the birth of money, “a form of value, or the exchange value.” 

The roots of money as we know it today lies in the value of one commodity compared 

against another. The example used in the text is 20 yards of linen being equal to 1 coat. 

What if the individual exchanging the coat needs 30 pounds of wheat rather than the 20 

yards of linen being offered? Such a person might have to make multiple exchanges before 

acquiring what is needed and in the process even feel cheated they didn’t receive an equal 

amount of use value for their original commodity exchanged. Thus enters money to simplify 

the process, and with it, the willingness to exchange any commodity for money. But money 

must also be a commodity itself. In the time of Marx, the gold standard served as this great 

equalizer in the form of value. 

To Marx, money is not what gives the commodity its value but rather reflects the value 

already in the commodity. I would agree with this but add that the value perceived in money 

is the motive for producing a given commodity. 

Hans: See my [264] for a response. 

Message [257] referenced by [264] and [319]. Next Message by Guerito is [291]. 

[264] Hans: Money is not the result of a social contract. Guerito correctly defines the 

riddle of money in his [257]: the riddle of money is the puzzling question why money can 

buy everything. 

Guerito’s answer to this puzzling question follows the story most often told in mainstream 

economics: it would be too inconvenient to exchange commodities based on a barter system 

alone, therefore money is introduced to simplify the process, and the general acceptance of 

money is due to the fact that everyone benefits from this simplification. 

Marx’s explanation is different. His starting point is that already in the simple barter between 

linen and coat, the coat acts as money for the tailor to buy the linen, and the linen acts 

as money for the weaver to buy the coat. In other words, it is an aspect of every commodity 

to act (in a limited fashion) as money. The evolutionary development in Section 3 of chapter 


One shows how this intrinsic function of every commodity is enhanced and transferred to 

one special commodity (gold) through generations of practical activity. 

In general, Marx was very much opposed to the thesis that social norms and structures 

arise from an agreement or contract which everybody adheres to because it benefits the 

individuals. In Marx’s view, social structures are the evolutionary result of people’s practical 

activity. 


[316] Aaron: Marx was probably driving at the question of the relationship between 

money and production. But as he was striving to develop an expression of value one can 

go back to the most basic answer to the riddle of money by relying on historical accuracies 

about human nature in that all humans will choose the path of least resistance and therefore 

money can be explained that it exists to aid in the ease of transactions between commodities. 

It is much easier to logically think through a market place where transportation costs and 

restrictions would inhibit the timeliness of exchange between people and by giving a rare or 

unique substance some intrinsic value (meaning all parties involved must similarly believe in 

the medium of currency) they can readily exchange the believed currency instead of carrying 

their goods, or constantly displaying their services. 

Hans: Please read my [264]. 

Message [316] referenced by [319]. Next Message by Aaron is [317]. 

[319] Hans: Please read the archives before submitting. Guerito said very clearly in 

[257] what Marx understood the riddle of money to be, namely, the puzzling question why 

money can buy everything. I confirmed in [264] that this was the right answer. Guerito also 

tried to explain money by transactions costs, and my response [264] said that Marx had a 

different explanation of money. In Contribution, Marx says explicitly that money is not a 

cunningly devised means to overcome the technical inconveniences of the direct barter. 

It does not seem that Aaron was aware of this interchange when he submitted his [316]. 

His contribution set the discussion back instead of promoting it. 

Please read the archives before submitting, so that you can build on the previous answers 

instead of starting at square one again. 


[334] Stretch: cash riddles. For most of today’s capitalists the only riddle of money is 

how do get more of it. Like the bourgeois, this fascination with money and all it can buy 

drives men to do gnastly things. The question as to why money can buy everything, seems 

to me to be one of the greatest questions ever asked. What is it about having a piece of paper 

in your back pocket that lets you get things, or take things from others? It has been said that 

everything is for sale, you just have to find the right price. This is where Marx reveals his 

genius and complexity, he tries to connect a value to each aspect of the economy and explain 

how those values are intertwined. 

The true riddle for most of the labor class, including starving students, is how to pay the 

bills? One of the first lessons of economics is that you can only save or spend each dollar. 

The answer to the riddle is to multiply them. 

Hans: You are describing, by implication, the process which turned money from servant into king. The origins of 

money are humble; it arose from the necessity to circulate commodities. But once it existed, people discovered how 

powerful money can be. Instead of using it as a tool to measure and circulate commodities, they accumulate money


for its own sake. The starving student who tries to come up with ways to make a little extra money to alleviate his 

poverty, and the capitalist who is swimming in money and cannot get enough, are “two sides of the same coin.” 

Next Message by Stretch is [364]. 

[889] Will: Marx understands that the riddle of money is its link between money and 

production. The riddle is why can money buy everything? The most basic answer to this 

question would be from Marx’s point of view that value relations of a commodity contain an 

expression of their value through exchange relations on the surface of the economy. Through 

that the expression of value goes through a progression from which the simplest shape of a 

commodity is the expression of value contained in a bartering transaction. This is where the 

social worth of a commodity comes in. Marx goes on as saying that the origin of money 

came about because of the social acceptance of its value within a commodity for another 

commodity. This in effect is why we use money as our value control of a commodity. It is 

the simplest form from which we can gauge how much a commodity is worth. 

Hans: The money form is less simple than it might appear. The price of my commodity is such a good gauge of 

what this commodity is worth only because all other commodities have prices too. 


Question 143 is 125 in 2003fa, 142 in 2004fa, 160 in 2007SP, 163 in 2007fa, 166 in 

2008fa, and 188 in 2010fa: 

Question 143 Why doesn’t Marx say that the simplest value relation is that between commodity 

and money? 

[243] TimJim: Commodity and Money vs. Commodity and Commodity. Marx states 

in 139:2 “the simplest value relation is that of one commodity to a single commodity of a 

different kind...” I find that Marx makes this statement for two reasons: 

The first reason why one commodity to another commodity is the simplest value relation 

is because it does not deal with the complexities of money. For example, in my line of work 

I produce jeans. According to Marx’s theory, the value of my jeans can be exchanged for 

5 bags of groceries. I could take a pair of my jeans down to the grocery store and feed 

myself for a week. If I were to include money into this exchange, I would need to sell my 

pair of jeans for $75 and then take that $75 to the grocery store and exchange for 5 bags of 

groceries. I basically end up with the same result except it takes more steps to accomplish. 

This becomes even more complicated the more that money is involved. Money has problems 

in itself such as inflation, different currencies, etc. In its simplest form, it is best to relate 

one commodity to another. 

The second reason I believe Marx makes this statement is because he believes that money 

is at a higher level, a “blinding form.” Marx goes on to state the “riddle of money.” I believe 

that money destroys the exchange of use-values of two commodities. As Hans stated earlier 

in his reply [79] to Tiny, money itself is worthless. Something that takes no time to produce 

is easily exchanged for a commodity is not what Marx believes in. The commodity is the 

base of a capitalist society and a tangible thing that has links to price. 

Message [243] referenced by [2007fa:78]. Next Message by TimJim is [311]. 

Question 144 is 113 in 2001fa, 123 in 2002fa, 126 in 2003fa, 143 in 2004fa, 169 in 

2008SP, and 167 in 2008fa: 


Question 144 In a capitalist economy very few commodities are directly exchanged against 

each other: almost all transactions involve money and a commodity. Why does Marx start 

his investigation with the exchange relation between two commodities, instead with the much 

more common relation between money and a commodity? 

[258] Astclair: The marketplace in its most simple form can exist without governmental 

structure or currency. In a marketplace which has no currency it would be necessary to 

evaluate basic goods, such as coats and linen, in terms of exchange value, against other basic 

goods. Marx refers to this direct exchange, or exchange rate, of commodities, as relation by 

virtue. Currency is simply a function of the direct exchange value of commodities. 

Ernesto: Money is nothing more than a means of exchange. Lets pretend that apples were worth five dollars. 

Oranges were only one dollar. Two people could exchange apples and oranges just as easily as money for the 

goods. In essence money merely takes the place of another commodity in the exchange process. It doesn’t change 

the value placed on one good in relation to another. 

Astclair: I agree with you on your point. Currency just simplifies the exchange process, so that I don’t have to 

keep a stock of oranges, apples, coats, linen, etc. etc. that I would need in order to buy that what I want because I 

have what the other person needs or will accept as payment. 

Message [258] referenced by [265]. Next Message by Astclair is [329]. 

[263] Geo: graded A Marx starts his investigation with the exchange value relation between 

two commodities instead of the more common relation, money and a commodity, because 

in a very basic sense, money by itself has no true use-value as an exchangeable good. 

So it makes no real sense to begin an analysis of market exchange with money. ‘Money’ is 

only a substance representing something else which possesses value and/or use value. The 

other something which it represents is a commodity or sum of commodities. 

Therefore, true comprehension of a capitalist market must be founded in the understanding 

of this transition from commodity exchange to the symbolism of money. Marx here 

only touches the surface with the “mystery of money.” But his label that use-value based 

exchanges are purely social is right on, and helps to solve the mystery of money. Without 

our complex social connections and desire for what seems like an unlimited number of 

commodities, many of our valuable items would not have any meaning or value. 

Even a basic principle of marketing is to create demand by persuading consumers they 

need a particular item, therfore, the product is valuable because it is “needed”. This must be 

part of the propaganda or brainwashing that exists in our market system. And surely to an 

extent it exists, maybe not as extreme as many professors loudly proclaim (sorry Hans) but 

it does exist and claims many naive victims. Why do millions of Americans have serious 

debts that bind them so tightly? Because they have been convinced they need a bunch of 

stuff that really has no true value. 

The ‘value’ that is engrained to the item is purely social. Remove the use-value from 

other commodities and money loses its use-value. This is why it is fundamental to begin 

a study of capitalism with the exchange relation between two commodities and not money. 

Money is only a symbolic form of value. Today, money and capital are used interchangeably 

but, as Marx explains, this is not correct because the derivation of the value of money is the 

commodity value. 

Next Message by Geo is [405].


Exam Question 148 is 114 in 2001fa, 124 in 2002fa, and 144 in 2004fa: 

Exam Question 148 Why is the simple value expression asymmetric between coat and 

linen? 

[612] Gza: graded A extra credit test question. Since we cannot see value because it is 

congealed and not materialized, we have to look for an expression of value that can allow 

comparison for potential exchange. We cannot say that the coat and the linen are inherently 

(innately or tacitly) equal since they are not the same. However, as Marx illustrates in 

his expression we can see the value of one as in the body of the other; the linen in/to the 

coat. What is key in asymmetric expression is to be aware what a commodity’s value is in 

exchange for other commodities. Constructing an expression that allows comparative value 

to be explicitly materialized in discourse allows trade to engage in a systemic context of 

equal value. This is essential because one does not trade equal/same commodities. In his 

simple form, Marx utilizes one equation: x=a, where a is the equivalent and x is the relative. 

The expanded form takes this expression and adds other commodities where all possible 

commodities are equated to a single commodity such as linen. Thus, x=a; y=a; z=a, and so 

on where a is the equivalent and x,y,z are the relative. The general form allows the role of 

the relative and equivalent to reverse or switch. 

Message [612] referenced by [629] and [631]. Next Message by Gza is [821]. 

[629] Michael: A note on GZA’s answer. GZA, 

In your answer [612] the expanded form is crossed up with the general form: Your equations 

x=a, y=a,..., actually correspond to the general form. One expresses the expanded form 

of value of one commodity “z” as z=a, z=b, z=c, ..., and so on for all the various commodities 

which are exchangeable with z (of course, in explicit proportions). 

As you suggested, the simple form of value of one commodity, in this case z, expresses 

the value of z in terms of the use-value of a. So, in the expanded form, which is the simple 

form extended, the value of z is expressed in terms of each of the use-values a, b, c, .... 

That is, there is no unique commodity (except trivially, where z can only be traded for a) 

that assumes the role of equivalent in the expanded form. In the general form it’s just the 

opposite: Every commodity which assumed the role of equivalent in the expanded form now 

assumes the role of relative form. That is, now the values of each of commodities a, b, c, ... 

are being expressed in terms of one use value–z. 

One asymmetry in the simple form of expression a=x is that commodity a is expressing its 

value in terms of a use-value–x. But as this expression stands we cannot speak of the value 

of x, because here x is value–is value materialized. (Likewise, if gold is in the equivalent 

form it wouldn’t make sense to ask: what is the value of w amount of gold? But we could 

ask: what is the value of gold in terms of, say, silver? But in that case the silver would be 

playing the role of equivalent, while gold would be in the relative form.) 

So there is an asymmetry inherent in the expression a=x: one (and only one) commodity is 

considered only as a value, while the other is considered only as a use-value. Then reversing 

the equation just reverses those roles. 



[631] Hans: Asymmetry in theory and practice. Gza’s [612] is an excellent answer; 

there is a little error at the end with the expanded form of value, with Michael corrects in 

[629]. 

Gza, Michael, and Marx himself make a very abstract argument: they explore what it 

means to say that x amount of commodity a is worth y amount of commodity b, and they 

conclude that this meaning is asymmetric. 

In the Annotations I tried a more concrete approach which places this abstract value 

statement into a practical context. I view the situation as follows: If linen weaver and tailor 

exchange 20 yards of linen for one coat, then the linen weaver “says” through this transaction 

that the 20 yards of linen are worth one coat for her, and the tailor says that his coat is worth 

20 yards of linen for him. The asymmetry of the simple form of value comes therefore from 

the fact that the two parties in an exchange have different views of this exchange and pursue 

different goals with it. 

The answer which I was aiming for was therefore: the simple form of value is asymmetric 

because the two parties in an exchange pursue different goals in this exchange. This is by no 

means the only way to answer this question, but I think it provides a helpful perspective for 

the understanding of the whole section 3 of chapter One. 


Question 150 is 85 in 1995ut, 87 in 1996sp, 88 in 1996ut, 94 in 1997WI, 92 in 1997ut, 99 

in 1998WI, 107 in 1999SP, 134 in 2003fa, 170 in 2007fa, and 182 in 2009fa: 

Question 150 In the Simple or Accidental form of value, which commodity plays an active 

role, and which a passive role? Explain what it means in this situation to be active or 

passive. 

[338] Keltose: (graded C) Until now I have never thought of a commodity playing an 

active or passive role in economics. Hans makes a great point, “This is why Marx says 

that the value of the linen is expressed in the ‘use-value’ of the coat.” (86) When thinking 

about that I believe that the linen in this example plays the passive role, and the coat being 

active. The coat is being used, and therefore has the value because of its use. The linen is 

passive because it can create other uses and values by way of the tailer into other goods, (i.e. 

blankets, socks). The use-value and the active role is being played by the finished and used 

good. This seems only relevant to exchange goods. If there were some use and value in 

plain linen, then there would be nothing to compare in exchange. Marx explains, “The same 

commodity cannot, therefore, simultaneously appear in both forms in the same expression 

of value.” (86) 

Hans: You are making the mistake against which I warned in [73]. 

Next Message by Keltose is [340]. 

Question 158 Marx says that the human labor accumulated in the coat is not visible in the 

coat. Is this not obviously wrong? Everybody who sees a coat knows that it is a product of 

human labor, this coat would not exist without the human labor that produced it.


[1883] Avatar: graded A– True, the coat would not exist without the human labor that 

produced it and the labor power that made the coat can be seen in its use-value, but the 

human labor accumulated in the coat is invisible. 

Human labor-power is expended in the production of a coat, but human labor is what is 

congealed in the coat. The useful labor (labor power) that went into making to coat can be 

seen in the use-value of the coat, but the useful labor is latent (dead) because it can not be 

gotten back from the coat. The accumulated value that gives the coat value is the abstract 

labor that is represented by the coat. The object (the coat) made from linen is a representation 

of the value of linen. The value of the linen had to be given up to produce the coat and the 

value of the linen is then represented by the coat. 

Further, the relationship that Marx makes between the linen and the coat is interesting. 

He says that they are “kindred” and come from the same breed. I wonder if this example 

is drawn from the saying about two people who are similar in nature being “cut from the 

same cloth” or if Marx’s example is the source that saying comes from. Either way, it is 

interesting because it give a sort of human character to the linen and the coat. 

Hans: Yes, this is the right answer. Although the coat is made of labor, and labor generates value, the use-value 

of the coat does not contain an atom of value material, as Marx says. One might say the abstract labor does not 

generate the use-value of the coat but its exchange-value. 

Everything in your answer makes sense except for the following passage, which is going in an entirely wrong 

direction: 

The object (the coat) made from linen is a representation of the value of linen. The value of 

the linen had to be given up to produce the coat and the value of the linen is then represented 

by the coat. 

You are making the mistake which I warned against in [73]. This possibly had a bad influence on the very next 

homework submission, [1897], which made the same mistake. And I had to duck your grade although it is overall 

an excellent answer; this will teach me a lesson regarding mandatory sentencing. 

Final Grading Note by Hans: Always interesting, thoughtful, original, challenging contributions. I also liked it 

very much that you directly engaged the other participants in serious but polite debate. 


[1940] Gutter: graded D Certainly there is an accumulation of human labor that is within a 

coat even though it is not visible. At that, we need to separate the labor from the commodity. 

Labor is detached from the overall value of the coat. The use-value is detached from the 

overall value of the coat. This is to say that the value of “x” with the value of “y” create the 

overall value of the commodity being produced. So apparently the human labor will take 

account for the existence of the coat because we know the capitalist will make sure that it is 

calculated into the price of what is to be sold. 

Final Grading Note by Hans: So you think the capitalist calculates the price by adding his costs (including the 

labor costs) and a markup on top of it? This has nothing to do with Marx, and the concept of value which you 

are using in your answer doesn’t either. Several times during the Semester, in [409], [1650], [1651], my responses 

to your answers indicated that you had basic gaps in the understanding of Marx. I see no evidence that you have 

closed these gaps. 

First Message by Gutter is [379]. 

[1949] Phatteus: Marx’s statement is not incorrect. When an object is put on the market, 

the person who is buying the commodity sees that yes the object would not exist without the 

useful labor that was used to produce it, they are purchasing the commodity because of the 

use-value that it has to that individual. The useful labor was expended. In the annotations 


Hans states, “The labor producing the linen could have been used to produce coats, and it 

could also have been used to produce anything else, but it must always be in a product, since 

storing the labor as labor is not an option.” This statement helps us to understand that while 

we do see that the coat had to have been produced through labor power, it is not visible 

because it could have been used to create any number of objects. Thus when the commodity 

is placed in the market, it is placed in a social structure that only allows for the use-value to 

be presented and seen. 

Hans: You are basically saying that the abstract labor which generates the value of the coat is something social. 

This goes in the right direction. 

First Message by Phatteus is [254]. 

[1951] Surferboy: Just like any commodity for sale, the labor is not visible. Marx just 

states the obvious, this is a rhetorical statement. The visible fruits of labor that made the 

coat is a social process that is accounted for in the price of the coat even though we can’t see 

the process. Without the labor there would be no coat. 

Hans: This answer is short but it has the important word “social” in it. Value is a social relation, and the abstract 

human labor producing value is socially determined as well, as one can see for instance from the story of the slow 

and unskilful laborer. This social substance cannot be seen in the coat itself but in the price of the coat. 


Question 159 Take those things which we found out from the analysis of value, and describe 

how the linen itself tells them to us. Can the coat tell us a similar story? 

[1897] Thelonius: So the first ananlysis of value as Marx describes it is found in the 

quality of labour, which produces a value. The second, as we have discussed at some length, 

is the encapsulated (abstract) labor-value found within the use-value of the commodity produced. 

Speaking again in terms of linen and coats, the linen represents a respectively more 

raw labor form, where as the coat is a compound labor form of linen used by more specialized 

value-producing labor to become a coat. Again, the coat was once just raw linen and is 

now a refined and functional coat to keep one warm in inclement weather. The two discussed 

forms of value are present in the conversion process. While the linen is a rather rudimentary 

commodity form (cotton inputs being yet more raw), we can presume that the commodities 

level of refinement is relative to the value producing labor used for its production. The less 

refined the commodity form, the less specialized the labor. The coat represents a higher 

trophic level in the commodity production column. The coat consists of value producing 

labor, metamorphosed by yet more specialized value producing labor to become the higher 

commodity form. 

In both the linen and the coat commodity forms, we get an idea of both the character 

and the congealed labor within in the commodity. The abstract labor is expressed through 

the worth of the coat being multiples greater than that of the linen. That higher multiple of 

worth is also akin to the higher skill set necessary to convert linen into coats. 

Hans: You are making the mistake which I warned against in [73]. Also otherwise your answer is full of misunderstandings. 

Marx would not use the word “forms of value” for linen and coat. This will probably be quite confusing 

for any reader of the archives. This question refers to a very specific Marx quote at the beginning of 143:3/o. 

Message [1897] referenced by [1636], [1883], and [1905]. Next Message by Thelonius is [1907]. 

[1905] Danske: I agree with Thelonius [1897] in the assessment of the value of the coat. 

However there is an additional area of value that is derived from the use of the sewing


machine and the labor and skill used to create this commodity. In the case of the coat the 

sewing machine becomes capital but still carries to the coat a portion of the labor value from 

the production of the machine. I think this aspect of value is the one that Marx sees as being 

exploited the most or in allowing the labor to be exploited by removing a little more of the 

“organic” value of the commodity with each cycle of development. 

Hans: In Marx’s theory, all value comes from labor, i.e., all value is what you call “organic”. Your theory of 

exploitation has nothing to do with Marx. 

Next Message by Danske is [1925]. 


Question 164 The relationship “20 yards of linen are worth 1 coat” says that 20 yards of 

linen have the same value as 1 coat, but it says nothing about the value of the coat itself. 


[242] Ace: graded B+ It takes careful (As Submitted:) It takes careful reading 

reading of the text to understand this, so I of the text to understand this, so I hope this 

hope this is right. The “20 yards of linen is right. The “20 yards of linen are worth 

are worth one coat” says nothing about the one coat” says nothing about the value of 

value of the coat, so the second half of the coat, so the statement is right. This is 

the statement is right. But the first half why, the text says “the linen weaver does 

of the statement contradicts the text, which not compare the value of the linen with the 

value of the coat” (Ehrbar 97). What is try- 

says “the linen weaver does not compare the ing to be said is that the weaver knows the 

value of the linen with the value of the coat” amount of labor and effort that went into 

(Ehrbar 97). The weaver knows the amount making the 20 yards of linen, basically the 

of labor and effort that went into making weaver knows the use value of the linen. 

the 20 yards of linen, basically the weaver The weaver then has to decide if one coat 

knows the value of the linen. The weaver is worth the use-value of the linen. It is a 

then has to decide if the use-value of hav- decision that has to be made by the weaver 

ing one coat is worth the value of the linen. 

I.e., he does not compare the value of the 

coat with the value of the linen, but he compares 

the use-value of the coat with the value 

of the linen. In Marx’s words, he expresses 

the value of the linen in the use-value of the 

coat. 

and no one else. 

Hans: Much of what you say is right, but on other places there are oversights or confusions. I edited your text to 

fix those errors. The edited text is shown in the left column, your original in the right column. 


[244] Snickers: graded A– That is a correct assumption to say that the value of the coat is 

not expressed by the 20 yards of linen. It is only stating that 20 yards of linen are worth that 

of one coat, not the other way around. If technology increased in the linen manufacturing 

then more linen would be produced, thus the exchange rate for linen could increase to 30 

yards of linen for one coat. That does not say that the value of the coat has increased but 

just the “exchange proportion is an expression of the value of linen” Hans stated, not an 


expression of the value of the coat. The price of the coat has not changed just the value of 

linen. Now, if the coats require more labor the price for coats will rise but this has no effect 

on the linen producer since the time needed to make the linen does not change. This shows 

that the relationship between the value of 20 yards of linen being worth one coat, does not 

represent the value of the coat. Now with the increased coat price coat makers will be not 

wanting to give coats away for 20 yards of linen. So linen manufactures now will have to pay 

more linen per coat, they have not changed the value of the coat, just the coat makers setting 

a new price for the coats and the market forces the linen manufactures to adjust acordingly. 

As Hans states, “The exchange proportion the linen weaver agrees to depends on the value 

of coats, but the linen weaver’s agreement is not an expression of the value of coats.” So just 

because 20 yards of linen is equal to one coat that can not be used to determine what the 

value of the coat is. 

Hans: Your second sentence should read: “It is only expressing the value of the 20 yards of linen in the use-value 

of the coat, but not comparing it with the value of the coat.” Other than that, your answer is ok. 

Message [244] referenced by [312]. Next Message by Snickers is [696]. 

Question 170 What are the limits of the analogy with the sugar loaf? (Describe this analogy) 

[283] Mjk: The most analogy of the sugar loaf is that “first” is mass, or heavyness that 

would be invisible property of the thing which may expresses itself in the force pulling this 

thing toward the earth. For instance, if one has a piece of iron on one’s hands, you can not 

see or smell or otherwise touch and tell how much mass it contains any better than sugar 

loaf. 

Another thing we should consider the most is that if the need arises to express the heavyness 

of the matter of the sugar-loaf, i.e for example, because the individual wants to buy the 

sugar or may use it in different way or in a recipe and therefore needs to know exactly how 

much sugar it contains when places on the scale to be weighted and at the same time look 

how much should the iron weights. As a result, I think iron itself is no better incarnation of 

heavy matter than the sugar-loaf. 

By the way, to express the sugarloaf as a heavy matter, we can compare theme to place it 

into a weight relation with the iron to find out the heavyness of each item. 

In this case, iron is found as a body that represents nothing but heavy matter. Therefore, 

an iron is to be compared to measure the weight of sugar; in relationship with sugar, heavy 

matter pure, and simple, and the incarnation of the heavy matter. 

Hans: Much of your answer is a copy or paraphrase of text on pp. 101-102 of the Annotations, originally with 

sometimes sense-distorting typos. And nothing about the limits of the analogy. Please use your own words in future 

submissions, so that I can tell how much you understand. 


Question 176 is 196 in 2007SP: 

Question 176 Aristotle wrote: ‘There can be no exchange without equality, and no equality 

without commensurability.’ What does he mean by this? What is the difference betwee 

equality and commensurability?


[240] Nazgul: graded A Hundreds of Dresses. Aristotle made the statement, “Money, 

then, acting as a measure, makes goods commensurate and equates them; for neither would 

there have been association if their were not exchange, nor exchange if there were not equality, 

nor equality if there were not commensurability.” Aristotle is pointing out the concept 

that exchange is difficult when there is no means to trade, thus the need for a quantitative 

process to commensurate and equate goods. 

Equality, as used in the above text refers somewhat to bartering, for example if a dress 

maker wanted to purchase a car, the hundreds of dresses it would take to exchange with the 

car producer would not be feasible. While an equal number of dresses could be exchanged 

the dress maker is limited in the bartering they can do, the trade works if the commodities are 

somewhat “equal” in value like trading dresses for shoes or food, but for larger items it becomes 

a problem. When money is introduced it becomes the link that binds the interactions 

making it possible for numerous exchanges. 

Commensurability is defined as “measurable by a common standard or unit.” In order 

for things to be equal there must be a means to measure that equality, money becomes the 

common standard to which commodities are valued allowing exchanges to occur. Aristotle 

understands how objects can be equal on a quantitative level, but failed to grasp their equality 

qualitatively. 

Message [240] referenced by [1921]. Next Message by Nazgul is [274]. 

Question 180 is 103 in 1995WI, 125 in 1998WI, and 247 in 2010fa: 

Question 180 Labor was not equal in Ancient Greece—how could the Greeks then exchange? 

[1899] Matt: During the times of Ancient Greece things were still able to be exchanged 

despite the inequa 

Things are able to be exchanged becaused there is something of equal value in them. 

When looking closely there is one thing that is equal and that is all commodities are products 

of human labor-power. This brings up the question then how could things be exchanged in 

Ancient Greece when labor was not equal? This was not possible because this society was 

formed on the basis of slavery. At this time value was derived from the expression of human 

labor in general. The inequality of labor really had no meaning. This society’s natural basis 

was the inequality of men and of their labor powers so they didn’t know what inequality 

was. 

Hans: They probably wouldn’t have called it inequality but they certainly did know the difference between a slave, 

a non-citizen, and a full-blown citizen. The latter considered it beyond their dignity to be laboring. 

Your unfinished sentence at the beginning was the right approach. 


[1918] Will: graded B– Ancient Greece. In Ancient Greece labor was not equal. Even 

though such philosophers as Aristotle lived during that time and believed that there was an 

exchange value within their commodities, labor was still unequal and therefore exchange 

was not equal. Aristotle in the text states that the money form of a commodity is only a 

further development of the simple form of value. He believed that exchange for linen to 

coats was the same as coats to a certain amount of money. Aristotle at this point in his 


analysis says that things being worth equal amounts must be something foreign to the true 

nature of things, a mere “makeshift for practical purposes.” Aristotle did not go the next step 

and explain that the value of a commodity was subset in the value of labor. So all in all the 

form of commodity values is that all labor is expressed by equal human labor and therefore 

as labor of equal validity. Because Greek society was founded on the labor of slaves their 

labor was unequal and therefore the inequality of labor powers. 

Hans: Question 180 itself is only addressed in your second sentence, where you say that exchange was not equal. 

I don’t think the Greeks would have considered the exchanges they made to be unequal. But you are right, this 

surface equality did not correspond to a deeper equality pertaining to the production of these commodities. 

Other than this you are giving an ok summary of Aristotle’s argument, with one exception: the value of commodities 

does not come from the value of labor but from labor itself. Labor itself does not have value. This is 

something you argued yourself in [1817] giving a similar summary of the Annotations as you are giving here. This 

makes me wonder whether you are thinking things through or whether you are just copying down the Annotations. 

Your next-to-last sentence cannot be deciphered. It is apparently a paraphrase of the beginning of 151:5/o, 

where Marx says: 

In the form of commodity values, all labor is expressed by equal human labor and therefore as 

labor of equal validity. 

Message [1918] referenced by [1921]. First Message by Will is [416]. 

[1921] Nazgul: graded A Ancient News. Matt first answers this question in [1899], but 

is incorrect in saying that exchange was not possible in ancient Greece because the society 

was based on slavery. Labour does not need to be equal in order for exchange to take place. 

Marxian economics teaches us to realize the amount of socially necessary human labour 

power in commodities to determine their worth, a concept not realized in ancient Greece, 

however, exchange still took place. Will answers the question a little better in his post 

[1918]. 

Going back to question 176 [240]. Aristotle along with others equated objects on a quantitative 

level failing to grasp their equality qualitatively. This is how the Greeks exchanged 

by assessing the items’ values according to local conditions, personal relationships and bartering. 

The human labour put into an item had no value to them, the exchange was based 

primarily on quantitative levels. 

Hans: You are right that exchange relations can be established on the basis of a veriety of “local conditions.” Once 

people exchange, they act on the surface as if the things they are trading were equal. This fits best together with 

the organization of production itself if the things indeed have something equal in them; but it does not by itself 

magically generate or even require this underlying equality. 

First Message by Nazgul is [82]. 

[1945] TriPod: The Greeks could only exchange if there is in fact something equal in 

the different commodities. All Commodities are created by human labor power therefore 

they have some value it just needs to be of value to the person they are exchanging with. 

Marx says in 151:5/o “Greek society was founded on slaves hence had as its natural basis 

the inequality of men and of their labor-powers.” From what I get out of it since there is 

some labor-power things should be able to be exchanged. 

Hans: You are quoting the sentence in which Marx says that there is no equality and you are arguing: yes there is 

equality because Marx uses the word “labor-power” for all these labors. Here the distinction between an abstraction 

made on one’s head and a real abstraction comes in which I discussed in [1954]. The researcher can still think of 

all these labors as the expenditure of human labor-power, even if society itself does not recognize any commonality 

between these labors. 

First Message by TriPod is [186].



Question 182 Why is it wrong to say that the commodity is use-value and exchange-value? 

[346] Manchu: Use Value vs. Exchange Value. One cannot say “the commodity is 

useful thing and exchange-value” because the exchange value is the perception of the commodity 

defined by those around. One person’s value may be another person’s lack thereof. 

It is not just what the commodity contains, or the value of the commodity, but the reaction 

of those that deal with the commodity (relative to the second commodity to which it is being 

compared) that give it its value of exchange. Without the second (or third or fourth) commodity 

the original commodity, although it may have value, has no exchange-value making 

this phraseology incorrect. 

Hans: Exchange-value is something relative. That is the key to the answer, but it does not mean that exchangevalue 

is purely based on perceptions. If people don’t value a good any more, this means less of this good will be 

produced. But the value of the good itself cannot sink to zero, because of its production costs. 

In Marx’s theory, the exchange-value is the relative, i.e., exterior, expression of the labor content inside the 

commodity. If one wanted to be precise, one would therefore have to say “a commodity is use-value and value” 

instead of “a commodity is use-value and exchange-value.” 

Message [346] referenced by [2008fa:519]. Next Message by Manchu is [513]. 

Question 185 is 127 in 1997sp and 150 in 2001fa: 

Question 185 How is the opposition of use-value and value in the commodity expressed, 

made evident, in the Simple form of value? 

[1571] Hans: How does an Opposition Manifest itself? This is one of the homework 

questions assigned over the Thanksgiving weekend and the Monday after. Answers are 

accepted starting right now until Tuesday morning, November 29, at 3 am. 

This question does not show up in the current version of the Annotations, but it belongs 

on p. 112, right after where Marx says: 

The Simple form of value of a commodity is the simple form of appearance 

of the opposition between use value and value contained within the 

commodity. 

Please elaborate what he might have meant by this. 

In the archives you can find three answers to this question: [1997sp:94], [2001fa:54], and 

[2001fa:58]. But none of them are useful, you only waste your time if you read them. 

Here is the list of all the homework questions assigned until Tuesday morning 3 am: 

(81), (117), (129), (185), 375, 377, 590, 601 

Those in parentheses are not in the Annotations, but you will be able to see their text in 

my next three emails. All these are regular homework question, not extra credit assignments. 

I am adding these assignments to those in the syllabus so that class participants who have 

not yet submitted enough homework answers can catch up. As with all other assignments, 

you can only get credit for one graded submission in this list of questions. I will announce 

another assignment for the week December 5-8. 



Question 186 is 124 in 1997WI and 128 in 1997sp: 

Question 186 Why does the development of the commodity form of the product coincide 

historically with development of the form of value? I.e., why did history not proceed in such 

a way that the products of labor first developed into commodities and then, after some time 

lag, the form of value of these commodities went through its own development? 

[1937] JJ: graded A History and Development of Value and Commodity Forms. The 

development of the commodity form of the product has to coincide historically with the 

development of the form of value because the two have a strong gravitational pull towards 

one another. These two developments seem to be an almost perfect complement, i.e. you 

cannot have one without the other. This pull cannot be explained by the natural sciences; 

rather it is from the social realm where these forces have power. Inside the exchange equation 

or relation is where use-value and value try to reconcile one with another. 

First let’s examine the value aspect of the exchange relation. From the annotations page 

114, we read “Value can only then be socially relevant if the value character of things is 

reflected in people’s behavior”. This congealed value, means nothing in the realm of natural 

sciences, it does not know how to use or make sense of such a thing. Yet, this social force 

tends to act like a “natural” force to humans. As mentioned by Hans [1997sp:115], the 

commodity in addition to its “natural form”, the value form of a commodity is twofold being: 

congealed abstract labor and the product of concrete labor. Concrete labor on a commodity 

is important to make the commodity useful that is the commodity is desirable to the producer 

buying it. Concrete and Abstract labor are two contradictory aspects found within the same 

commodity. Abstract labor seeks to validate its labor spent for meaningful acceptance within 

a social context while Concrete labor is sought because it provides a function to its eventual 

owner, which is to provide a use-value to this owner. 

As also mentioned by Hans [1997sp:115], the development of the form of value “further 

(drove) the inner contradictions of these forms, and with the historical development of commodity 

production, these inner contradictions are accentuated.” From whatever side of the 

commodity exchange equation a person, group or entity is on, a lack of satisfaction in obtaining 

their desires for value or use-value will “accentuate” these social forces. The reason 

why history does not first develop into commodity then a realization of the form of value, 

is because the motivations or the social forces which dictate such a development would not 

make sense, that is it is only one perspective of one side of the exchange relation or equation. 

Hans: I can no longer quite follow that I said in [1997sp:115] about concrete and abstract labor, but what I said 

about the contradictions of the exchange can be elaborated as follows: With the increasing variety of commodities 

on the market, the value and use-value of each commodity come more and more in contradiction with each other. 

In order to practically handle this contradiction, its two poles have to be spread over two different commodities: the 

ordinary commodity representing the use-value, and the money commodity representing the value. Marx said this 

in 181:2. This shows how the development of the form of value from simple barter relations to money cannot lag 

behind but must go in parallel with the development of commodity production itself. Often it also happens that the 

market develops first, and commodity production, i.e., production geared for this market, only afterwards. This is 

what Marx seems to say in 153:2/o. 

Final Grading Note by Hans: You did not participate in the general discussion and did not write a term paper 

discussion and only four homeworks, but what you did submit was well researched and showed an excellent 

understaning of the material. 

First Message by JJ is [288].



Question 191 Describe the “defects” of the Simple form of value, and explain how these 

defects generate their own remedy. 

[348] Robgodfell: graded A Simple Form: Defects and Remedies. Marx writes “Although 

this Simple Form expresses the value of a commodity A in only one commodity of 

another kind, it is a matter of complete indifference what this second commodity is, whether 

it is a coat, iron, corn, etc. [Ehrbar,115].” And in the immediately preceding passage Marx 

has already told us “However, the Simple form of value passes by itself into a more complete 

form [ibid, 115].” That “vollständigere Form” is the Total or Expanded Form of Value, 

which will include an inclusive quantitative exchange set for our original use-value/bodily 

form of the relative commodity that is present for exchange. 

Thus, if a producer has need of many different commodity/use-values, it is exactly in 

those needed use-values that the producer will express the relative commodity. I.e. a producer 

has produced a clock. The clock is socially traded for 10 yards of linen (of course). 

Yet, the clock itself holds no use-value to said producer, nor the linen, but the producer is 

in need of food stuffs, means of transport, and building materials for his new gazebo, etc. 

It is exactly in those items that the expanded form of value will be expressed to articulate 

the equality of abstract human labor value subsumed in his product. The clock will then be 

known to trade for x amount of clothing, y amount of transport, and z amount of bricks and 

mortar. 

Marx also mentions that the Expanded Form of Value has its own weakness in that “...the 

series of its representations never comes to an end [ibid, 120].” And that this form is also 

banded by defects: non-uniformity of equivalency across the board of any given commodity 

for any local and time of production, multiple use-values exist in given commodities, and 

non-uniformity of the expanded equivalent of one commodity vs. another. However, it is 

complete in the fact that it represents all possible equivalents of abstract human labor [ibid, 

120]. 

Next Message by Robgodfell is [431]. 

[723] Daleman: graded B+ The defects of of the simple form of value are spontaneous 

and occur by themselves. Within the defects themselves lies the key to transcending the 

defect. The defect is that the value is expressed in only one arbitrary commodity (Ehrbar 

275). Because of this many values of each commodity are possible. Thus causing the defect 

and the solution. 

Next Message by Daleman is [781]. 

[730] Robgodfell: graded A Darn Defective Simple Form. The defect found in the 

simple form when a commodity A is expressed in the value of commodity B, is that there is 

“a complete indifference [to] what this second commodity is [Ehrbar, 115].” Also, there is a 

non-uniformity of equivalency across local and time of production. 

One object z which equals 3 parts object x is actually worth 4 parts object x per foreign 

local or time. 

The Expanded Form however, even though it is the more complete form in which the 

simple form naturally passes into, still carries the simple form’s defect of non-uniformity of 


production, and which is only solved by an average of human labor time across all production. 

The list of equivalents in the Expanded form has no conceivable end as an never-ending 

ever-expanding list of equivalents/commodities are produced and set for exchange. 

The Expanded form however can be understood to be complete and representative of all 

current possible equivalents at any given local and time. 


[733] Zone: graded A– The defect of the simple form of value is that when two commodities 

are exchanged using the simple form of value they are only looking at the two 

commodities in relation to each other. In the annotations Hans states that, with the example 

of linen and a coat, the coat is only directly exchangeable with the linen, not with other 

commodities. Marx goes on to say that these defects generate their own cure. They do this 

by looking at the first commodity as a expression of the second commodity. When you look 

at the first commodity being an expression of the second you can go on to state that if this 

is true then you can state the first commodity as an expression of another commodity all together. 

So instead of saying 1 coat = 20 yards of linen, you could say that 1 coat = 1 hammer. 

The reason for this is people produce commodities to exchange therefore they need many 

different things other than the commodity they produce. 


[758] Dange: graded A– The simple form is only expressing that 20 yards of linen can 

buy you one coat. This exchange implies that the coat and the 20 yards of linen represent 

the same use-values when in fact they do not. What else can I get for 20 yards of linen? This 

form does not tell us that. The remedy is that if 20 yards of linen equal 1 coat and 20 yards 

of linen equal 3 pounds of potatoes, then 1 coat equals 3 pounds of potatoes. This opens up 

for more exchange and places exchange value on more goods. 

Hans: This is not the remedy Marx was talking about. 


[777] DarkKnight: graded A Defective answer. The “defects” of the simple form of 

value are that in order for trade to happen, there must be a coincidence of wants, i.e. the 

coat maker must want linen at the same time the linen weaver wants a coat (to use Marx’s 

example). The remedy comes from the fact that the coat maker and the linen weaver find that 

they can trade the labor (value) in their product for the use-value of the other product. If they 

can find this relationship between their two commodities, then they can likely find it in other 

commodities. Marx states this in the following way: “Admittedly, this simple form only 

expresses the value of a commodity A in one commodity another kind. But what this second 

commoditity is, whether it is a coat, iron, corn, etc., is a matter of complete indefference.” 

(Capital p.154) Thus we are led to the Expanded form of value, which resolves the defects 

of the Simple form of value, though it has defects of its own to resolve. 

Message [777] referenced by [1816]. Next Message by DarkKnight is [779]. 

[816] MarxSchmarx: graded A The most blatant defect in Marx’s Simple form of value is 

that it is insufficient. The Simple form’s purpose is to separate the value from the use-value 

of the relative-form commodity in comparison to one commodity (the equivalent form). 

“Although the Simple form of value represents the value of a commodity as something that is 

different from its use-value, it does not represent this value as something that is qualitatively


equal for all commodities”. [Ehrbar, p.114] It fails to show any proportion of any kind 

of equal quality, as well as a quantity, with any other commodity. Lacking the ability of 

equality with any other commodity (besides the relative good) also restricts the equivalent 

commodity. 

These defects eventually generate their own remedy. The producer of the relative good 

needs to exchange his good for many other goods. Therefore, the relative good will be 

expressed in numerous equivalents. This leads to the creation of the Expanded form of 

value. This Expanded form expresses value in the form of countless other commodities. For 

example, if the tailor needs bread, the Simple form of value may be 1 coat = 5 loaves of 

bread. If the tailor also is in need of apples, it could be said that 1 coat = 12 bushels of 

apples. I could then be said that 1 coat = 5 loaves of bread or = 12 bushels of apples. This 

can repeat itself for all commodities. 

Hans: Your in-class answer has the beginning of an interesting argument. You are saying: one defect of the Simple 

form is that, if the weaver agrees to accept a coat for 20 yards of linen, from this does not automatically follow 

that the tailor agrees to accept 20 yards of linen for one coat. I think the defect you are talking about consists in 

the fact that the symmetrical transaction of exchanging two ordinary commodities requires the confluence of two 

very asymmetric underlying decisions. If the underlying force is asymmetric, then it will find a better expression in 

an asymmetric form, i.e., the separation of the world of all commodities into the ordinary commodities on the one 

hand and money on the other. 

Next Message by MarxSchmarx is [817]. 

[818] Parmenio: graded A The Defects of the Simple Form are that commodity A can 

only express itself in relation to another commodity B; or that “it does not represent this 

value as something that is qualitatively different from its use-value” (Hans annotations 114, 

italics his). The analogy of linen for coats tells us that they are only exchangeable with each 

other in this form “not with other commodities” (115). So one would be limited in what one 

could do with commodity A if it was only exchangeable with commodity B. 

This “defect” however is overcome as we transition from the Simple form to the Expanded, 

and the way to raise above this defect is inherent in the defect. To overcome this 

Hans uses a “Hegelian perspectival switch” when he states that the defect in the “value expressed 

in only one arbitrary commodity” (emphasis mine) can be overcome by accepting 

this arbitrariness and expressing the value of the commodity in many different ways (annotations 

116). 

In other words linen and coats don’t have to be exclusively exchanged one for the other, 

one can make many different relationships to other commodities also. 


[822] Picard: graded A The simple form has two parts – the relative and the equivalent. 

For example 20 yards of linen = 1 coat. The yards of linen (the relative) is the commodity 

whose value we are trying to represent. The coat (the equivalent) is how the value of the 

linen takes form. 

This form has some defects. First is that it is a limited view of the economy and commodities. 

It makes it so that one commodity is exchangeable with only one other commodity. 

There is only one possibility of exchange. Second is that placing a value (equivalent) on a 

commodity is relative, it is not an exact science. As Professor Hans wrote in the class notes 

“it does not represent..value as something that is qualitatively equal for all commodities.” 


These defects generate their own remedies which according to Marx occur spontaneously. 

This happens because of need. Different producers need different things. They will thus 

express the value of that commodity which they want to trade in many different terms or 

equivalents. This new form is what we studied as the expanded form. 

Final Grading Note by Hans: After this class was finished, Picard asked me to write a recommendation letter. 

Here is what I wrote (of course I did not write “Picard” but inserted the real name): 

Picard’s performance is consistent and thoughtful from beginning to end. Picard uses simple 

and clear language which does not try to impress or bluff or second-guess what the professor 

wants to hear. Picard is not afraid to tackle difficult questions, try out new ideas, or think 

through abstract theories and unfamiliar methodology. Picard is often refreshingly logical and 

pragmatic. Only now did I have the opportunity to see Picard’s CV, which confirms that behind 

these written materials is a sincere, reliable, and mature person. 

I didn’t write in the letter that I had the impression that Picard sincerely tries to understand the world in the paradigm 

supplied to him or her, but that I did not see much criticism of that paradigm itself. 


[838] Rudy: graded A Marx points out that, “One sees right away the insufficiencies of 

the Simple form of value. . . ” The simple form of value expresses the exchange relation of 

one commodity to another. For example, a linen weaver might exchange 20 yards of linen 

for one coat. The defect of this relationship is that it only tells us about the linen and the 

coat. Additionally, the annotations states, “[The Simple form] does not represent this value 

as something that is qualitatively equal for all commodities.” Thus, the Simple form is not 

compatible with other exchange relations. 

In order to remedy these defects, the Simple form transitions to an Expanded form of 

value. This transition does not occur through some socially conscious adjustment to the 

Simple form, it occurs by itself. Hans’ annotations describe this process as a “Hegelian perspectival 

switch,” which points out the defect of the Simple value is that it is expressed in 

only one arbitrary commodity. The arbitrariness is the key to the self-correction of the Simple 

form. Since the commodity is arbitrary, it does not matter what the second commodity 

is as long as the second commodity, “possesses the form of equivalent, the form of direct 

exchangeability [154:2].” In the end, it makes no difference what 20 yards of lines could be 

exchanged for. It could be exchanged for a coat, some bricks, an Ipod, etc. My mistake 

was to overemphasize the role labor plays in determining equivalents. While the labor determines 

value, it is the arbitrariness of the one commodity to the other in the exchange that 

enables the Simple form of value to remedy its own defects. 


[896] JJ: graded A The defect and remedy of the simple form. The defect in the simple 

form of value is found within the simple form equation itself. In this equation we have the 

relative and equivalent form, the former is the active portion and the latter is the passive 

portion of the equation. This relation distinguishes between the value which the relative 

form represents from the equivalent form which represents the use-value the producer seeks. 

If this single type of transaction is multiplied, for example 20 yards of linen for one coat, 

this relation does NOT send a coherent signal to the core or the production (pg. 115). The 

incoherence of this signal makes it so that these relations are NOT qualitively or quantitively 

equal. The qualitative portion of the exchange relation changes because of technology for 

example, and quanitively could also be caused by a technology shift causing a different


exchange proportion in the commodity. The Producer goes to the market because he or she 

is in need of many other things. By doing this “he or she will express the value of his or 

her commodity in many different equivalents”(pg.115). This multiplicity of exchanges will 

create a suitable range or benchmarks for proper exchange relations. This multiplicity form 

is called the Expanded form, and is also the remedy for the incoherence of the simple form. 

Hans: Multiplication means the occurrence of many different barter relations, here 20 yards of linen = one coat, 

there 2 pairs of shoes = 1 chair. 


[921] TriPod: The simple form of value is different to every person because every person’s 

situation is so different. People are willing to give up a product or commodity they have 

depending on their situation. Example: my brother is financially strapped and has no means 

of transportation so today he is willing to give up his computer that is new and expensive so 

that he can get cash to help purchase a new car so he can get to work so that he can meet 

his basic needs. Marx says “although this simple form expresses the value of a commodity 

A in only one commodity of another kind, it is a matter of complete indifference what the 

second commodity is, whether a coat, iron, corn, etc.” People are willing to exchange based 

on today’s needs. What someone is willing to exchange today will be different tomorrow. 

Next Message by TriPod is [922]. 

[968] Ash: graded A– In-class answer: The defects in the Simple form of Value are that 

just because 20 yards of linen = 1 coat, and 1 coat = 2 bushels apples, it does not mean that 20 

yards linen = 2 bushels apples. The simple form of value is using an equivalent commodity 

to define the value, or abstract labor time, of a relative commodity. It does not go any further 

than that. These defects force one to think further and come up with the expanded form, 

then, the general form, etc. 

Explanation: The answer is right, however, I was not clear on how the defects in the 

simple form of value resolve themselves. The resolution is inherent in the defect. If I had 

20 yards of linen and wanted 2 bushels apples, in the simple form I could not trade my linen 

for the apples. I would therefore have to make multiple trades to get to the 2 bushels apples. 

This is extremely cumbersome and can be next to impossible. Therefore, it is only natural 

that the simple form evolved itself into the expanded form of value. 

Hans: Yes, if the weaver is willing to give 20 yards of linen for 1 coat, and the tailor is willing to give 1 coat for 

2 bushels apples, this does not mean that the weaver is willing to give 20 yards of linen for 2 bushels apples. Her 

tastes for apples are probably different than the tailor’s. In a money-less economy, the individual exchanges are 

likely to be quite divergent. This is not only a problem for exchanges but especially for production: the producers 

don’t know whether they should produce more apples or more linen or more coats. This is the subject of section 3: 

the quality of the signals which the producers receive from the market transactions (as I said already in [337]). 

Your explanation of the resolution of the defects is incorrect. You are right (and Marx said so) that the transition 

from the Simple to the Expanded form of value is automatic. But it is not the result of a conscious problem-solving 

activity. If it were, the detour over the Expanded form, instead of going directly to the General form, would be 

puzzling. The Expanded form comes from the simple fact that the linen weaver needs not only coats but many 

other things, and she offers her linen in exchange for all of them. 

Next Message by Ash is [969]. 

[1816] MrPink: graded A My comments in the exam: 

The defect of the simple form of value is that the expression of exchange is too simple. 

In the simple form a producer of linen may be able to exchange 20 yards of linen for one 

wool coat. Both producers are limited to this exchange. Once linen becomes the relevant 


form things can be expressed in other terms. In other words, if linen is the base commodity 

then exchange forms can be expressed in term of 20 yards of linen. This evolves into the 

expanded form and then the general form. Producers can then create a market place. 

My comments for the resubmission: DarkKnight’s answer [2005fa:777] makes the most 

sense to me. He/she discusses that the simple form only allows the wool coat to be exchanged 

for 20 yards of linen. This resolves itself when those producers of the commodities figure 

out that they can use their labor to reproduce more commodities for exchange with other 

different commodities. 


Question 195 is 170 in 2002fa, 173 in 2003fa, 198 in 2004fa, 215 in 2007SP, 218 in 

2007fa, 223 in 2008fa, 236 in 2009fa, 229 in 2011fa, and 239 in 2012fa: 

Question 195 Which characteristics of value are expressed better in the Expanded form of 

value than in the Simple form, and what are the defects of the Expanded form? 

[322] Jingle: graded A Expanded form of value. The characteristics of value have a 

superior expression in the expanded form than in the simple form, because each value of 

a commodity can now be expressed in a multitude of other commodities. The correlation 

of the same commodity can not be the same everywhere at all times. The expanded form 

accredits the exchange value of a commodity further due to the detailed characteristics that 

goes beyond just the use-value of a commodity taking into deliberation the assessable terms. 

It is not the exchange of commodities, which regulates the magnitude of the value of commodities, 

but it is the magnitude of value of the commodities which regulates the proportion 

in which they exchange. 

The expanded form expresses the exchange value of a commodity better in terms of all 

other commodities. The expanded form expresses the society wide value of the commodity 

in terms of congealed labor completely removed from use-value. Implicitly, abstract labor 

contributes to the expanded value of commodity. The expanded form becomes a more accurate 

reflection of the content of the commodity. In the expanded form the accidental relation 

between two individual commodity owners disappears. 

While the expanded form exhibits characteristics of value better than the simple form, it 

is far from immaculate and thus too has its lapses. The three defects that Marx states are: 

Lack of Uniqueness, Lack of Simplicity, and Lack of Uniformity. 

Lack of Uniqueness: There are always new commodities entering the market. It is not 

the only one of its kind, there is new varieties of the commodities. Also the possible values 

of a commodity are endless. 

Lack of Simplicity: Marx calls it “motley mosaic.” It has luxury and is stylish, but it is 

hard to create. The best example that I know is the example of a quilter. A quilter will have 

to offer difficult patterns (longer hours) of labor to add value to the quilts that she produces. 

Lack of Uniformity: They are not the exact same with the other commodities. Commodities 

are varied in so many different ways. Not every commodity can be put into groups of 

other commodities, accordingly a common commodity must be found. Lacks the simplicity 

so it lacks in making things exactly the same.


Hans: There is nothing wrong with the word assessable per se, but I still recommend not to use it, because everyone 

will think you meant accessible and made a spelling error. 

The original meaning of immaculate is the virgin Mary’s immaculate conception (conception without spots). 

For me, this is reason enough not to use this word because of its religious overtones. But here the choice is up to 

you, as long as you know what you are doing. 

You have great imagination and quite a bit of “jingle.” Dont’t let people dissuade you from using your gifts and 

seeing the world through your own artistic eyes. 

Next Message by Jingle is [323]. 

[333] Sparrow: The Expanded form of value provides for more flexibility when it comes 

to what may be exchanged for a commodity. In the Simple form of value a commodity 

has one other type of item that may be used for exchange whereas the Expanded form has 

countless alternatives. Having said this it does appear that the Simple form does have an 

advantage in the terms of being more universal and having everyone on the same page in 

regards to the value of a commodity in relation to that other particular commodity. It seems 

the Expanded form will be less efficient in trying to pin down a conversion of value between 

two different items, but it will give people more options when trading and thus open up more 

avenues for trade. 

Hans: The Expanded form does not open more avenues for trade, but it arose exactly because people have already 

created these alternative avenues for trade. In Section 3, Marx shows how the spontaneous practical activity of 

commodity traders projects an image of the inner anatomy of value on the surface of the economy, and how certain 

small acts of social coordination (the society-wide agreement to always use one specific commodity – gold – as 

general equivalent) sharpens this spontaneous image. 

Next Message by Sparrow is [492]. 

[793] Keltose: graded A Marx makes it clear that the expanded value is not complex. It 

is “nothing but the sum of the simple relative expressions or equations in the first form” (pg 

292, 2005fa.pdf). The characteristics of value which are better expressed in the expanded 

form are that it is more flexible than the simple form, in terms of what may be exchanged 

for a commodity. The expanded form portrays the exchange value of a commodity better 

with respect to other commodities. The expanded form becomes a more correct definition 

of the content and social value of a commodity. The Simple form of value says that a 

commodity only has one other item that may be used for exchange, versus the expanded 

form has numerous alternatives. This however, is not necessarily a good thing, Marx makes 

note of the inferiority of the expanded form “...the series of its representations never comes 

to an end” (ibid, 120). Even though the expanded form shows some characteristics of value 

better than the simple form, there are three defects which Marx points out. These are: 

Lack of Uniqueness; Since the market is always seeing new commodities, it is hard to 

find a one-of-a-kind product. Also the value of these commodities varies greatly. Lack of 

Simplicity; It does not portray the human labor which went in to a commodity. An example 

is, products that are difficult to produce, the labor value would increase. The third is Lack of 

Uniformity; Not every commodity can be put into groups of other commodities, for example 

the comment Hans makes, “Whereas value of linen is qualitatively equal to the value of 

boots, namely, they both are congealed abstract labor, the relative form of value of linen is 

different from that of every other commodity” (288, 2005fa.pdf). Respectably a common 

commodity must be found. 

Message [793] referenced by [2007SP:459]. Next Message by Keltose is [840]. 


[798] Prairierose: The expanded form expresses the characteristics of value (abstract 

labor) of the commodity better than the simple form through its comparisons with other 

commodities. In the expanded form the characteristics of value are better expressed due to 

the social relation of the availability to trade numerous commodities. However, a defective 

of this social relation is that people will never have the completeness of this social relation; 

they will only have a piece of it. Marx states three defects of the expanded form; lack 

of uniqueness, lack of simplicity, and lack of uniformity. Lack of uniqueness means that 

the equivalent of the same commodity is not the same everywhere at all times. Lack of 

simplicity is more than one use-value is involved in this form but in real life one will only 

deal with one of these use-values at a time. Lack of uniformity is the expanded equivalent of 

linen is qualitatively different from that of boots. These definitions are provided in the class 

annotations by Professor Ehrbar. 

Hans: Remember that we are talking about form of value here, i.e., the question is how well the surface relations 

represent what is going on underneath. This has implications for the practicalities of the exchange process, but it is 

not the same thing. 

Next Message by Prairierose is [1223]. 

[803] Astclair: In the expanded form of value, value is shown as a “society-wide relationship.” 

The value of the commodity it measured in the human labor that goes into producing 

it. The labor which created the commodity is now measured against the same type of labor 

which creates other commodities. Under this form of value a social relation is created, in 

which the commodity 1 is not only measured against commodity 2, but the entire realm of 

other commodities. The expanded form indicates that one type of abstract human labor is 

equal to all forms of abstract human labor. 

The short-comings of the expanded form: 

The Equivalent of the commodity is not consistent everywhere all of the time, Marx calls 

this “lack of uniqueness.” It may not be necessary to have multiple values established in a 

complex system, since only one value will be necessary at a time. It assumes that all abstract 

labor can be measured equally. The commodities don’t enter into the market as a group with 

pre-established relative values, so, it is difficult to establish what the market value of each 

commodity would be initially if the commodities are not first compared with each other in a 

direct, simple form. 

Next Message by Astclair is [806]. 

[807] Nazgul: graded A Less than perfect. In comparing the expanded form to the simple 

form of value, the expanded form better “distinguishes the value of a commodity from its 

own use-value” (pg. 158). In this form the value of the commodity is equated with every 

commodity except for itself. While this characteristic of the commodity is advantageous in 

giving individuals more opportunity for exchange, it does present three major defects in the 

relative form outlined on page 156 in Capital, lack of uniqueness, simplicity and uniformity. 

The first defect in the expanded form can be stated as lack of uniqueness because the series 

of equivalent commodities is unending. The unending commodities entering the market 

“provide the material for a fresh expression of value.”


The second defect, the lack of simplicity, is attributed to the various labour involved in the 

different commodities being equated to one another creating a “motley mosaic of disparate 

and unconnected expressions of value.” 

The third defect, lack of uniformity, arises from individuals interpretation of each transaction. 

Each owner involved in a transaction has a commodity whose relative form of value 

differs from every other commodity. Depending on the time and place that the transaction 

is taking place, the commodities exchange value can vary for the owner. The lack of uniformity 

makes it ideal to have another commodity that can be equated to both in a transaction, 

this is where the money form becomes ideal. 

Next Message by Nazgul is [951]. 

[814] ADHH: graded A The expanded form better expresses the exchange value of a 

commodity like the 20 yds of linen in terms of the exchange values of other commodities 

like the coat or two barrels of apples. The expanded form is a more complete representation 

of value based on the relationships between commodities. 

According to Marx, the expanded form has three defects. The first defect is the lack 

of uniqueness. There are new commodities entering the market at any time. If people are 

willing to include these new commodities, the expanded form would have to be changed to 

accommodate the new commodities and would never be complete. The second defect is the 

lack of simplicity. The representation of a commodity’s value includes many components, 

many of which have nothing in common with the components of value of another commodity. 

The third defect is the lack of uniformity. The relative expression for the value of one 

commodity (commodity A) is not the same for the relative expression of another commodity 

(commodity b). Commodity A may be exchanged for commodity B but commodity A 

cannot be exchanged for all of the commodities that B can be exchanged for. If commodity 

C appears in the relative expressions for both A and B, the quantities required for exchange 

may not be the same. 

Next Message by ADHH is [1278]. 

[831] Aaron: The characteristics of value are first: 1. abstract human labor 2. Socially 

necessary labor 3. Has particular form. So in looking at the expanded form a particular 

commodity, say linen, is used to express how much of other commodities it can be used for 

to acquire those other commodities. Thus linen is used to express different amounts of other 

commodities. In simple form all that can be expressed is one equivalent and one relative 

commodity i.e. 20 yards of linen= 1 coat. Where people must exchange for more than one 

commodity to subsist, the simple form does not provide an adequate model to express all 

the various actions that happen autonomously in the market. Also the expanded form only 

relates one commodity to all others, whereas the general form reverses the exchange relationships 

so merchants and buyers may know and predict how much all relative commodities 

can be got for X amount of linen, and vice versa. However in production oftentimes a person 

will strive to produce and perfect one commodity that has exchange value for many other 

commodities in which they will need to have to survive. So relatively speaking the simple 

form may offer some concreteness without confusion or complexity to the producer’s equation. 

They are only concerned with how much in relation to their commodity, so perhaps the 

simple form will be the “benchmark” by which the producers expanded form derives. 

Hans: You say that in the Expanded form, 


a particular commodity, say linen, is used to express how much of other commodities it can 

be used for to acquire those other commodities. 

I.e., you are measuring many other commodities with the same one particular commodity. This is not the Expanded 

but the General form. In the Expanded form, many other commodities are used to express the value of one given 

commodity. Later down in your answer you use the correct concept of Expanded form, but the definition you first 

give is wrong or at least can be misunderstood. 

Marx is arguing that the Simple form can exactly not be the benchmark, because the value is expressed in some 

arbitrary commodity. 


[903] Thelonius: Simple vs. Expanded forms of Value. Marx offered multifarious 

definitions of the many aspects, which contribute to a commodity and its value. One of 

these definions was that a commodity’s value is expressed as a “social-relation”, thus the 

exchange of commodities that occurs between holders. The values encapsulated within a 

commodity are expressed to some degree within the social exchange of commodities. A 

commodities value will be more wholly expressed in what Marx calls the Expanded form of 

value, than in the Simple form, for the Simple form states that the value in commodity A is 

only exchangeable for the value in commodity B. In the expanded form, commodity A can 

be ultimately exchanged for commodities B-Z, and in doing so has a much greater value as 

a social-relation. There are defects in the Expanded form of value. 

What I can see is that the labor value, which is housed within the commodity, becomes 

more obscured in the exchange relation as its commensurability is evaluated on a more 

saturated market of commodities in exchange. Marx cited these defects as shortcomings, 

which arise on the market. Specifically; Lack of Simplicity, Lack of Uniformity and a 

Lack of Uniqueness. He said that in the expanded form that the producers of a commodity 

will need to spend more time making their product more accomodating in its use-value 

than would be neccesary in the Simple form. Commodities can become obscured from 

one another, where they were once similar in design. The more saturated with a type of 

commodity a market becomes, the more difficult it is to create a commodity, which is unique 

above all others. 

Workers would not need to spend excess time and energy on a commodity in the more 

Simple form in order to compensate for these market forces that effect a commodities expression 

of values. 


[908] Sparrow: The expanded form of value provides for numerous expressions of a 

commodity’s value. It also removes accidental individual circumstances from being a factor 

in determining the quantity of value. An advantage it has over the simple form of value is 

that it includes a complete list of equivalents as opposed to the exchangeability with just 

one commodity as in the simple form. The defects of the expanded form are that it is not 

unique, simple, nor uniform. The equivalents are not constant; they contain more than one 

use-value although most people only deal with one use-value at a time, and the equivalents 

of a commodity are qualitatively different from that of any another commodity. 


[985] Snowy: resub. In-class answer: The expanded form of value is a better representation 

of the quantity aspects of value. The expanded form of value deals with multiple 

commodities and their exchange-values with other commodities. The exchange-values are


based on labor which proves there is value. The value better expressed in expanded form is 

quantity because the quantity measures the labor-power used to produce it and has an effect 

on the exchange-values of multiple commodities. 

Simple form of value is dealing with an asymmetric sale or exchange of a commodity and 

the quality value which has to do with how useful that commodity is and is better expressed 

in this asymmetric form of value. 

Correction: – I should have said that expanded form is better than simple form because 

the value of one commodity can be expressed in many other commodities in expanded form. 

Also, expanded form shows the exchange value better than simple form because of all of 

the other commodities involved. The expanded form expresses congealed labor completely 

removed from use-value. The expanded form is a better way to show the content of the 

commodity, or its value, than simple form. 

Yet, there are defects with expanded form, Marx states that they are: lack of uniqueness, 

lack of simplicity, and lack of uniformity. 

Hans: Your in-class answer says that the Simple form of value expresses the quality of value better, which, as you 

say, “has to do with how useful that commodity is.” This is wrong. The quality of value is not use-value but the 

quality of value is abstract human labor. This quality is not well expressed in the use-value of the Simple equivalent, 

and it is also not well expressed in the Expanded equivalent (which is not simple and uniform enough). Only the 

General equivalent will remedy this defect. 


Question 200 is 144 in 1999SP, 160 in 2001fa, 173 in 2002fa, 176 in 2003fa, 203 in 

2004fa, 220 in 2007SP, 223 in 2007fa, 228 in 2008fa, 241 in 2009fa, 268 in 2010fa, 234 

in 2011fa, and 244 in 2012fa: 

Question 200 Describe the joint work of all commodities which is necessary to appropriately 

express the value of one commodity. 

[312] Pisciphiliac: graded A– The Joint Work of All Commodities. In the process of 

explaining / defining the General Form of Value, it is necessary to detail the joint work of all 

commodities. Unlike Simple and Expanded forms of value, which are generally defined by a 

“private” transaction, the General form is defined by the social relations of all commodities. 

The General Form relies on a single commodity to allow all other commodities to express 

their exchange value. For example: 10 yards of linen may equal 5 pounds of sugar and 10 

yards of linen may equal 10 pounds of salt. Now that we have established a relationship 

between the goods with a value being expressed in terms of linen, we can also trade 5 

pounds of sugar for 10 pounds of salt. 

This relationship grows and requires the joint work of all commodities to agree to always 

express their value in a single commodity, which was gold (and in current times, the dollar). 

A market will demand values to be expressed in a single commodity, as it grows in number of 

buyers and sellers, increases its number of commodities, and spans a larger geographic area. 

Only when the values of all commodities are expressed in terms of a single commodity’s 

value, can you obtain a General form of value. 

Hans: The first sentence in your second paragraph does not describe things in the right way. The commodity 

which is the general equivalent is not in this privileged position because it allows other commodities to use it. Marx 


emphasizes that the equivalent form is passive, it obtains its apparent power from the commodities in the relative 

form of value. Therefore this sentence should read: “The General Form relies on it that all other commodities 

express their exchange value in one and the same commodity.” And here you have the answer to question 200: this 

coordination among all commodities to express their values in one and the same commodity is their joint work. 

“10 yards of linen are equal 5 pounds of sugar and 10 yards of linen are equal 10 pounds of salt” is the Expanded 

form of value, not the General form of value. 

Your very last sentence is mis-formulated. The ordinary commodities express their value not in the value 

of gold, but in the gold itself, the use-value of gold. The value of gold is as invisible as the value of the other 

commodities. For an expression you need something visible and tangible. See [242] (left column) or my remark in 

[244] for more explanation. 

Message [312] referenced by [771], [783], [925], and [1934]. Next Message by Pisciphiliac is [394]. 

[343] Dandy: Joint work of commodities. Exchange value is a form of manifestation 

of value. Therefore, references to exchange value presuppose the existence of value. Where 

there is value, there is exchange value. 

In order to express the value of one commodity all commodities have to obtain a value. 

It is the private task of an individual commodity to give itself a form of value. The general 

form of value can only arise as a joint work of the world of commodities to express their 

value in the same equivalent. 

Commodity trading has evolved from a extremely simple form of single bartering for like 

objects. This is called use-value and is a qualitative trade. Trading progressed to equivalent 

commodities where instead of like commodities all commodites were given a equivalent 

value and therefore could be traded. 

The next step as trading progressed was for society to pick a standard, something that 

was in extreme demand. Society decided that because linen was in such high demand it 

would be the “gold” standard by which all other commodities where equated to. All other 

commodities are valued in terms of linen. They can be exchanged against one another, but 

you are using the linen standard to define them. If it were not for these other materials linen 

would lose its value and vice versa. In our society, the early days and even today, we have 

used gold as our standard. Gold would be the equivalent to the linen discussed in the reading. 

Hans: Your first paragraph is correct. You could even go on to say: “it is a defining characteristic of commodities 

to have value. Where there are commodities, there is value.” 

Therefore the first sentence in your second paragraph does not make sense. Commodities already have value, 

they don’t need to get it. 

The second and third sentence in your second paragraph contradict each other. The second sentence says it is a 

private affair, and the third says that it can only be done as the joint work of all commodities. Which do you mean? 

About your last paragraph: the use-value of the commodity which is the general equivalent does not have to be 

something that is in extreme demand, and it is usually not. It can lead to economic disruptions if people eat their 

money. 

Message [343] referenced by [916]. Next Message by Dandy is [511]. 

[729] MK: Exchange value is presupposed by the existence of value. In order for an 

individual commodity to have value– all commodities must have value– this is because value 

must be measured against something. In order to express value, one must necessarily obtain 

value. Thus the joint work is in the values being determined commodity against commodity 

and determing exchange value. 

Hans: You are saying that value is purely relative. Marx tried to argue against this notion. In his theory, value is 

congealed abstract labor, which is a substance albeit a social one. 

Next Message by MK is [1026].


[771] Bubba: graded A In the Expanded form of value, a single commodity in the relative 

form expresses its value in the use-value of multiple commodities that are in the equivalent 

form. The General form of value is the joint work of all commodities, because they each 

adopt the relative form in relation to a single equivalent. Additionally, “it is no longer the 

use-value of the commodity serving as equivalent that matters, but the fact that every other 

commodity expresses its value in that same equivalent commodity” (Annotations, 300). That 

is what makes all the commodities in the relative form directly exchangeable. Now, for 

the first, time, we see that commodities directly relate to each other as values or “blobs 

of abstract human labor” (Annotations, 301), appearing as exchange-values. Pisciphiliac 

illustrated this in [312] with the following example: 

5 pounds sugar = 10 yards linen 

10 pounds salt = 10 yards linen 

Now, we can positively state that 5 pounds sugar = 10 pounds salt. 

The exchanges illustrated by the Simple and Expanded forms of value were private affairs, 

but the General form is a social affair, even requiring the supervision of the capitalist state 

(Annotations, 303). 

Hans: The one commodity in the equivalent form is the only one which is directly exchangeable for all other 

commodities. This is why the other commodities have to be turned into money first, a transaction which Marx 

compared with a “salto mortale.” 


[776] Iblindone: graded A Using the general form of value, all commodities must work 

together as a whole to express their value, which is called “the joint work of all commodities.” 

To express their value they must have a general equivalent which in today’s society 

would be money. Therefore every commodities value is equated to the general equivalent. If 

you produce the general equivalent you are able to exchange it for any and all commodities. 

As Marx states in [159:2/o] “the bodily form of the linen counts as the visible incarnation, 

the general social chrysalis state, of all human labor,” which results in “The innumerable 

equations of which the general form of value is composed equate the labor realized in the 

linen with the labor contained in every other commodity,” “Thus converting weaving into 

the general form of appearance of undifferentiated human labor.” 


[783] Mjk: The joint work of all commodities which is necessary to appropriately express 

the value of one commodity, hence the value is expressed as that which this commodity has 

in common with all commodities. This value expression of all other commodity makes its 

value the equivalent commodity directly exchangeable. However, the eqivalent commodity 

can be used to buy all other commodities. For instance, in this form, when comparing two 

commodities 10 lbs. of tea equal 20 yards of linen, and 40 lbs. of coffee equal 20 yards if 

linen, therefore 10 lbs. of tea equals 40 lbs. of coffee. 

In this case, the general form of value can only arise as a joint work of the whole commodity. 

So, this relationship comes always and needs the joint work of all commodities to 

express their values in one form of commodity. This is a very important concept because 

all commodities express their values in the General Equivalent, and this General Equivalent 

Commodity is directly exchangeable with all commodities found out in the annotation. 


Hans: Your resubmission is cut and pasted together from various sentences picked from the Annotations and the 

class discussion, with the connection between them mostly lost: 

“Hence the value is expressed as that which this commodity has in common with all commodities” 

is the third sentence in 158:4. The next two sentences come from the following single sentence in the Annotations: 

This value expression of all other commodities makes the equivalent commodity directly exchangeable, 

in other words, the equivalent commodity can be used to buy all other commodities. 

but by replacing “in other words” by “however” the meaning of this sentence was lost. The rest of your first 

paragraph is a paraphrase of a passage in [312] (which has nothing to do with direct exchangeability). The beginning 

of your second paragraph is lifted from: 

“The general form of value, on the other hand, can only arise as a joint work of the whole 

world of commodities. Only then will a commodity achieve a general expression of its value 

when, at the same time, all other commodities express their values in the same equivalent” 

in 158:5/o, and the second half of your second paragraph is a paraphrase of the following passage in the Annotations: 

This is an important observation: since all commodities express their values in the General 

equivalent, this General equivalent commodity is directly exchangeable with all commodities. 

As is often the case, your paraphrase lost the logical connection and the point the original sentence wanted to make. 

Here is the text of your in-class answer: 

The join work of all commodities which is necessary to appropriately express the value of one 

commodity when commodities have useful value of exchanging one anthor As it is happening 

express of value has a great usefulness of commodity in its value. SO, the joint work of all 

commodities play the role in expressing value in all commodities. 


[789] Geo: graded B+ The joint work of all commodities which is necassary to appropriately 

express the value of one commodity, expresses itself through a general form of 

value. The general form of value arises from the joint work of the whole social grouping of 

commodities. Marx explains this relationship through commodity comparison. A bushel of 

apples may be able to purchase a bushel of oranges, or a sack of potatoes or another socially 

approved trade combination. Therefore to appropriately express the value of one commodity 

it is important to understand the commodities’ relation to all other commodities and how 

much of each and all commodities you could buy with the original commodity, hence the 

joint work of all commodities. 

Hans: Just being interrelated is not enough. They also have to do something. You didn’t answer what this is. 

Next Message by Geo is [790]. 

[800] Dandy: Joint work of commodities. In order to express the value of one commodity 

all commodities have to obtain a value. It is the private task of an individual commodity 

to give itself a form of value. The general form of value can only arise as a joint work 

of the world of commodities to express their value in the same equivalent. It is a defining 

characteristic of commodities to have value. 

The definition relies on a single commodity to allow all other commodities to express their 

exchange value. A value is set on that commodity, and all other commodities are measured 

against that commodity. 

The next step as trading progressed was for society to pick a standard. Society decided 

that because linen was in such high demand it would be the “gold” standard to which all


other commodities where equated. All other commodities are valued in terms of linen. They 

can be exchanged against one another, but you are using the linen standard to define them. 

If it were not for these other materials, linen would lose its value and vice versa. In our 

society, the early days and even today, we have used gold as our standard. Gold would be 

the equivalent to the linen discussed in the reading. 

Hans: The joint work is to choose such a standard, whether it be gold or linen or some other commodity. 

Next Message by Dandy is [1272]. 

[815] SueGirl: graded A Joint work of all commodities. The joint work of all commodities 

means that they must jointly decide on one commodity to be the general equivalent 

– for instance, gold. It is a social agreement among the commodities based on the human 

labor put forth into each commodity. This is necessary to accurately express the value of 

one commodity, not because the commodities receive value from each other, but because the 

relations between these commodities enable them to express their values. In other words, if 

gold is selected as the use-value, then all commodities will individually express their values 

in this chosen commodity (ex: gold) 

Message [815] referenced by [2007fa:89] and [2007fa:244]. Next Message by SueGirl is [1138]. 

[846] Camhol: In order to express the value of one commodity it is necessary to look 

at every commodity used to make it. Let’s state that our commodity we are producing is a 

computer. For simplicity a computer is made from three other commodities. 

• Plastic (oil) 

• Glass 

• Silicone. 

When we add these commodities’ joint work values together we can calculate the beginning 

value of the computer. After this value is calculated, we can increase the computer’s 

value by adding the labor-value we have placed on it by our labors of putting these three 

commodities together. 

This relationship does have its negatives too. Say one commodity’s value goes up, we 

must either decide to increase the value of our computer or find a way to de-value a different 

commodity. Since we are in a competitive market we cannot easily justify raising our computer’s 

prices, so the option we do is de-value one of the other commodities. The way we can 

do this is by decreasing the human labor in one of the other commodities. This works well 

as evidenced by the increasing amount of machinery and technology used in the production 

of plastics, glass, and silicone, and even computer assemblies. 


[849] Phatteus: The joint work of all commodities work together to describe or express 

the value of one commodity. This is easily seen when looking at the four forms of value. 

Each of these forms builds upon the other, until you reach the end form and a basis has been 

defined for the values of all commodities. For example; 20 yards of linen is equal to or 

worth 1 coat. It can also be worth 10 lbs. of tea. It can then be expressed against all other 

commodities by saying that X amount of commodity A is equal to 20 yards of linen. When 

this is applied in the money form, the basis is defined. It can be seen as 20 yards or linen, 

or 1 coat, or 10 lbs of tea, or X value of commodity A is equal to 2 ounces of gold. Using 


this basis, commodities can be viewed in the relation to one another. In other words, one 

commodity can be compared to all others and all others can be viewed in relation to one. 

Hans: You are saying that the entire development which Marx describes in section 3 of chapter One is the joint 

work of all commodities. This is a possible answer to the question as it stands. But it you look at question 200 

in the context of Marx’s text, the question is more specific. The transitions between the different forms of value 

are different. Some transitions are automatic, others require specific actions. The “joint work of all commodities” 

refers to one specific transition which requires a social act of coordination. Which act? 


[853] Snickers: graded B+ If all commodities are necessary to express the value of one 

commodity that means right there that commodities have to be associated with value. Now 

since commodities have a value associated with them, then they must also have an exchange 

value associated with the product as well. As explained “the commodities appear not only as 

qualitatively equal, but also as values whose quantities can be compared.” This comparing 

of commodities gives all commodities a form of value. For example, 20 yards of linen can 

be equal to 5 pounds of tobacco and 20 yards of linen can equal 10 pounds of apples. So 5 

pounds of tobacco is also equal to 10 pounds of apples. This I feel is a great example of how 

joint working of commodities can express a single commodity’s value. This comparing of 

values is called the General equivalent, and the general equivalent commodity is directly exchangeable 

with all other commodities (Hans). Now value is expressed through how directly 

exchangeable your commodity is as compared to what and how much you are trading your 

commodity for, as compared with the General equivalant. So using the General equivalant 

to buy anything is an expression of value of the equivalant commodity. 

Hans: Only money is directly exchangeable, not the other commodities. Whether a commodity is directly exchangeable 

does not depend on the value of that commodity. 

Next Message by Snickers is [888]. 

[856] Surferboy: Separate commodities have different values. To be able to express the 

values of a distinct commodity a standard commodity must exist so that other commodity 

values can be determined. For example 20 yards of linen equals 10 pounds of tea, and 40 

pounds of coffee equals 20 yards of linen, therefore 10 pounds of tea equals 40 pounds of 

coffee. Linen serves as the general equivalent that all commodities are set equal to in order 

to exchange other commodites amongst themselves. 

Hans: Any commodity can be this standard commodity, and the “joint work,” according to Marx, is exactly to 

select such a standard commodity. 


[858] PAE: The joint work of all commodities is being able to get the value of one commodity 

in order to compare and derive values of other commodities. This is essential in 

placing value on different commodities within a market. If a consumer has nothing to compare 

the commodity, which they are buying to, how do they know its relative value? How 

do they know whether or not the value is accurate? If I go shop for a car and am not able 

to compare the car I am looking to any other I might be willing to accept an unfair value 

because of a lack of information. 

Hans: This is not the joint work Marx is talking about. 


[860] Utesroll: When Marx introduced the discussion of commodities he started with 

a simple relationship of a single commodity and its relationship to society. This analysis


helped us to understand what a commodity is in a Capitalist society. However this explanation 

is too simple to explain the bigger picture of commodities. Marx explained that in 

a Capitalist society wealth takes the form of commodities. These commodities show their 

value in two forms, use-value and exchange value. Through their use and exchange values, 

a commodity “satisfies human wants of one sort or another”. However it is impossible to 

understand a commodity’s value without an analysis of the commodity’s relationship with 

the other commodities in the society. The commodity must be valued while all other commodities 

are also valued. Only then will the commodity’s true value be apparent. From this 

we see that the joint work of all commodities is essential in determining the value of one 

commodity. 

Hans: “Express” and “determine” are two different things. 

Next Message by Utesroll is [861]. 

[872] Gutter: graded B The joint work of all commodities reflects the individualized value 

of one commodity. In this I mean that the values established within each commodity gives a 

relative value to the others. Such as in the linen and coat example. If the linen were without 

a value then it would be supposed that all other commodities would not have value either. 

Thus, when linen has its own individual value so must the other commodities. 

Next Message by Gutter is [874]. 

[875] COMMI: All commodities have value. In order to express the value of a commodity 

we have to look at the joint work of all commodities. For example, 10 yards of linen may 

equal 1 coat and 10 yards of linen may equal a goat. The goat and the coat can be traded as 

they are equal in this system. Eventually this system grew into expressing the value of all 

commodities into a single commodity which was gold. The use-value of gold gave the value 

to other commodities. Today we the dollar to express the value of a commodity. 

Hans: The general form of value did not arise from an amalgamation of goat and coat, but from a reversal of the 

relation. 


[876] Demosthenes: graded A Joint work. This concept of the joint work of all commodities 

to determine the value of an individual commodity is relevant beginning with the 

General relative form of value. 

Under the simple form of value, a commodity’s value is directly equated to another commodity’s 

value through simple exchange. What is the value of my ten apples? Why, it is the 

value of the watermelon for which I exchanged them. 

In the expanded form, we see the value of apples as they are equated to commodities of 

different kind. I traded ten apples for a watch here, so the value of the apples is equal to the 

value of the watch. Likewise when I traded ten apples for two pairs of shoes. 

In these simple scenarios, the value is determined on a case-by-case basis. You may say 

that the value of the apples can not be known until someone is found who is willing to equate 

their own commodity to it. 

The general form of value, however, does not confine itself to these private interactions. 

The value of any commodity can now be expressed in terms of a single commodity, ie apples. 

A watermelon is now worth ten apples. A watch is worth ten apples. A watermelon has the 

same value as a watch. Expressing all commodities in terms of apples allows us to equate 


other commodities to each other. This allows us as a society to grant a value to a given 

commodity. We accept, as members of society, that a given commodity is worth so many 

apples, rather than constantly re-determining the value of a commodity every time we equate 

it to another through an exchange. 

Hans: The value of the apples is not represented by the (unknown) value of the watermelon, but by the watermelon 

itself, i.e., the use-value of the watermelon. 


[893] Fidel: In order to express the value of one commodity it is necessary to look at 

the exchange value of that commodity as it relates to other commodities. The value of each 

commodity will vary depending on the labor involved. Commodities will naturally exchange 

with a commodity or grouping of commodities that represent the closest equivalent of value. 

This is easy when the commodities are very similar like furniture for a home. For example 

2 chairs for 1 table. When the commodities are disparate then a relationship must develop 

in order to get to equivalent values of one commodity for another. How does one go from 

a bag of oranges to a picture frame? They both may be able to be exchanged for a block of 

salt. Thus the joint work of commodities is necessary to express the value of an individual 

commodity. 

Next Message by Fidel is [894]. 

[910] Synergy: graded A Commodities have two roles, an active role and a passive role, 

and also two types of value (simple and expanded). When a commodity can be standardized 

to have its value equal some standard commodity of value, i.e. gold, then the commodity 

is in its passive role. An example of this would be: 20 yards of linen = 1 coat. From the 

linen producer’s standpoint, we can say that the linen plays an active role in an exchange 

relationship [1999SP:119-2]. This is the simple value. The expanded value would be when 

something like gold = 1 coat = 1 lb of tea = 5 pounds of grain etc. 

The use-value and the exchange-value come into play because someone will not standardize 

their commodity to something like gold unless there is a need for it to equal such 

a commodity. When they present this need then they can be measured up to the standard 

commodity. Deere says it best in [2002fa:75] “So the joint work of all commodities is to 

independently align themselves with a form of value which is the set apart commodity in 

order to be brought into relation with each other as values.” 


[916] BBQ: Describe the joint work of all commodities which is necessary to appropriately 

express the value of one commodity. 

The general form of value expresses the joint work of all commodities. In order to convey 

the value of an individual commodity, all commodities have to obtain a form of value. Exchange 

value is an expression of value. Therefore, references to exchange value presume the 

existence of value. In order to express the value of one commodity all commodities have to 

obtain a value. According to Dandy [343], “It is the private task of an individual commodity 

to give itself a form of value.” The universal form of value can only arise as a joint work of 

the world of commodities to express their value in the same equivalent. 

Hans: Only the Simple form of value is a private affair. 

Next Message by BBQ is [924].


[919] Mason: The joint work of all commodities which is necessary to appropriately express 

the value of one commodity should start out with a competitive market. Through a 

competitive market you will be able to determine the worth of your commodity. All commodities 

are intertwined with one another because of this market. And each commodity 

must be in a general form of value. In general form it can arise as a joint work of the whole 

world of commodities. “And all other commodities express their values in the same equivalent.” 

It then becomes plain to see that the commodities’ value is purely “social existence 

of these things.” Now I believe that Marx quote on page 127 shows just how much each 

commodity is intertwined with one another in the general form. “In this form, which sets all 

commodities equal to the linen, the commodities appear not only as qualitatively equal, as 

values in general, but also as values whose quantities can be compared.” Because of all the 

other commodities in the market you can now determine the worth of your own commodity. 

For example, “10 lbs. of tea = 20 yards line, and 40 lbs. of coffee = 20 yards of linen. 

Therefore 10 lbs. of tea = 40 lbs. of coffee.” And since all commodities express their values 

in genereal equivalent form you can directly exchange with all other commodities. The exchange 

rate of your commodity will increase or decrease by what these other commodities 

are worth in the market. Now through all these other commodities you are able to determine 

the value of your own commodity. 


[925] Jingle: content A– form 80% Marx writes, “The general form of value ... can only 

arise as a joint work of the whole world of commodities. Only then will a commodity achieve 

a general expression of its value, when at the same time, all other commodities express their 

values in the same equivalent.” This sentence mainly states that joint work of all commodities 

have to express their value in one single commodity. The general form is the social relation 

of all commodies. It relies on the single commodity to allow all other commodies to express 

their exchange value. The relationship between the goods and the value that they expressed is 

based on that the joint work of commodies that allow the expression of the single commodity. 

Hans: Your sentence: “It relies on the single commodity to allow all other commodies to express their exchange 

value” is taken literally from [312]. Please read my comments about this formulation there. 


[926] Manchu: The General Form of Value expresses the joint work of all commodities. 

When all other commodities express their values in the same equivalent, a commodity acquires 

a general expression of its value. Once achieved every new commodity must follow 

to do the same. The existence of commodities as values is purely social, this social existence 

can be expressed by the absence of any other relations besides social and consequently that 

the form of their value must be a socially recognized form. While Simple and Expanded 

forms of value are defined by a private transaction, the General Form of Value is defined by 

the social relations of all commodities. Exchange value is a manifestation of value. When 

we speak of exchange value we presuppose the existence of value but not vice versa. Value 

can exist just fine without exchange value, but where there is exchange value, there is value. 

Next Message by Manchu is [930]. 

[928] Legolas: In order for one to explain the joint work of all commodities, one needs to 

define the general relative form of value; which can “only arise as a joint work of the whole 

world of commodities.” The joint work is an all-sided social relation where the commodities 

have value. 


A commodity, which is anything produced for sale or exchange on the market consists of 

three elements: value (the properties which allow for exchange), use value (all possible uses 

of a commodity), and exchange value (the ability to be exchanged for other commodities). 

Since exchange value is a non constant which changes with time and place, it is difficult to 

assess the value of a commodity. 

This is why the joint work of all commodities is necessary to appropriately express the 

value of one commodity; there has to be a relation spanning all of society. In a simple 

exchange of two goods, i.e. a coat and 20 yds of linen, the first is relative and the second 

good is the equivalent. Therefore the value is placed by the society depending on the value 

of previous and current commodities; and as societies change so is necessary the joint work 

of all previous, current and perhaps future commodities. 

Hans: Your first paragraph is not the definition of the general relative form of value. 

The linen is in the relative form only for the linen weaver. For the tailor, the coat is in the relative form. 


[931] Stretch: When a commodity is produced is it given a certain value. Whether that 

be the price of the materials used in production, or the cost of labor used to create it, in the 

end some value is attached to the final product. Commodities can work together in creating 

a value, or an entirely new commodity. An automobile is made of numerous different parts, 

with each part having its own price or value. Commodities also perform joint work in another 

way, by comparing the value of one to the value of another like Marx does. 1 car is equal to 

10 tires, 10 tires is equal to a boat, then 1 car would be equal to 1 boat. 

Hans: In Marx’s theory, the value of a commodity depends on its total labor content. This is not the same as saying 

that the value is the cost of the commodity plus some markup. 


[932] Guerito: graded A Joint Work of Commodities. All for one and one for all to 

express the value of a single commodity. The joint work of all commodities is: they have 

to agree on expressing their values in one single commodity such as gold. This agreement 

requires 100% participation from all commodities, it has to be unanimous. “Only then will 

a commodity achieve a general expression of its value when, at the same time, all other 

commodities express their values in the same equivalent.” The commodities have to be team 

players and work together in choosing one use-value to set apart and use as a measuring stick 

to find their individual value. Each commodity is then mirrored by the general equivalent as 

their value is reflected through it. 

Next Message by Guerito is [934]. 

[935] Sonja: graded A– All commodities must be valued in relation to one commodity 

in order to express the value of that commodity. When all commodities are relative to one 

commodity, that one commodity takes the equivalent form to which all other commodities 

are meassured. The equivalent form commodity then becomes the money commodity to 

which all other commodities’ exchange values are measured. 

Hans: Yes, and the selection of this one commodity is the joint work of all commodities. 


[966] Hans: Expressing value versus assigning value. Many exam answers argue as 

follows: in order to assign a value to one commodity one has to assign a value to all commodities, 

because value is relative. The joint work of all commodities consists therefore in 

the fact that they all need to have values assigned to them for one being able to have a value


assigned to it. These answers are wrong because they do not use Marx’s theory of value but 

mainstream utility theory, according to which values represent some scalar measure of the 

consumers’ preferences that can only be generated by comparing all use-values with each 

other. 

Another set of answers said: values are not a private matter for each individual commodity 

because the production of each commodity requires the input of many other commodities, 

and the value of the inputs is added to the value of the output. Again, the joint work of all 

commodities is here that the values of the inputs and inputs of inputs needs to be known 

before the value of one single output can be computed. This answer uses a theory of value 

compatible with Marx’s, but it does not understand the concept of “expression” of value. 

Let me explain. In mainstream economic theory, goods get their values in circulation, 

when consumers bid their prices up or down according to their preferences. In Marx’s theory, 

goods get their values in production, through their labor input. Commodity circulation acts 

as a big photo camera that projects a picture of the otherwise invisible labor contents in the 

prices haggled out on the market. 

This photographic process works as follows: if a good is in excess demand, its price is 

bid up, and then the producers will switch more labor into producing this good and increase 

its supply and lower its price. This process goes on until prices are proportional to labor 

inputs, at which point nobody is motivated to switch labor around any more. The photographic 

analogy breaks down here because the act of taking a picture is part of the process 

constituting the thing whose picture is taken. 

For this self-equilibrating process to be possible, every commodity must have a price 

which relates it to all other commodities. Section 3 of chapter One describes how the interactions 

of the market participants give rise to such a price. Most of these interactions are 

entirely private: two market agents agreeing to trade or sell/buy a commodity. But not all interactions 

can be private because value relations span society as a whole. There is indeed one 

point at which the market agents have to consciously coordinate their actions, namely, by 

using one and the same equivalent commodity (in Marx’s example linen, but in reality gold) 

in order to express the values of their own commodity. The agreement on the commodity 

which should be this equivalent is what Marx meant by “the joint work of all commodities.” 

Message [966] referenced by [942], [1014], [1401], [1810], [2007SP:562], [2008SP:144], [2008fa:360], [2008fa:471], 

[2008fa:552], [2010fa:140], and [2012fa:206]. Next Message by Hans is [967]. 

[993] Elvis: Marx refers to an example where 20 Linens = 1 Coat, now one coat can be 

exchanged for 20 linen. This is valued by how much human labor is applied. This can also 

be said that once the equation is expanded 20 linen = 2 oz. gold = 2 tons iron. All these 

things are now valued and exchanged for another. 

-Here is what I wrote on the test in class. Marx goes into commodities and their value. As 

an example that he used 20 linens = 1 coat, this shows that 1 coat has the value of 20 linens 

and vice-versa. So now with value these things to the whole of society are a commodity. 

Now if we expand what 20 linens is equivalent to we also show that it is not just linked to 

coats, but every commodity. i.e. how 20 linen = 2 oz. gold = 2 tons of iron. This shows that 

all commodities are linked. 


Hans: You don’t seem to understand what Marx is talking about in section 3. He is trying to derive the genesis 

of money. Commodities are linked below the surface by the fact that they all contain abstract human labor. Marx 

describes the steps through which this inner link duplicates itself on the surface as the link of all commodities to 

money. 

Next Message by Elvis is [1640]. 

[1014] Gdubmoe: graded C Exam resubmission. Hans, I completely misunderstood the 

resubmission policy . I thought if I wanted to keep my answer I didn’t have to resubmit it. 

I’ll accept any late penalties awarded. Thank you. 

All commodities are all produced for exchange or for sale. Many different commodities 

have different exchange-values due to the resources used and the labor put into them. Each 

commodity produced has a use-value for someone in the market in which they are willing 

to exchange their commodity for another. Commodities that are produced have their own 

value which is the social worth or rate it can be exchanged for in a commodity society. 

All commodities can be exchanged for one another but each individual commodity may not 

equal the value of the other. For instance, a person who produced a coat may want a shirt 

but that wouldn’t be equal in terms of value because there are more resources and labor put 

into the coat. But the producer of the coat might be willing to exchange the coat for 15 shirts 

and the value of the shirts is more equal than a single shirt. If the owner of the coat wants 

5 shirts and a pair of shoes then the shirt owner might trade a certain amount of shirts for a 

pair of shoes in order to exchange them for the coat. All commodities are inter-related by 

their value and are produced for exchange. 

Hans: You still don’t understand the resubmission policy. If a resubmission arrives after all the other resubmissions 

are on the web, you are required to type in your in-class answer (which you did) and comment on it in the light of 

these other answers (this you didn’t do). There are many answers on the web which say quite clearly what the joint 

work of all commodities is. Your answer falls into the range of wrong answers I criticized in [966]. 

Next Message by Gdubmoe is [1186]. 

[1934] Danske: in class answer Marx describes the difficulty of each commodity being 

separated from other commodities. The means of production is itself a commodity (ie. printing 

press to produce a book, steel to produce a press, and iron ore to produce steel) each item 

has value and a part of the labor from each step carried to the product it helps to produce. 

Understanding the value of each item will help define later (commodity) values. Marx argues 

that these values are not all translated directly (from) labor input = output value, but 

more output value - labor input = profits for the capitalist. Each step will have a part of the 

previous step involved to produce (it in) the ouput value. 

resubmission I missed the main point that all commodities express their exchange value 

in terms of a single commodity to form a General Form of value, while all other commodities 

give the single commodity value [Pisciphiliac [312] and Hans note at end, Annotations:126:3]. 

Historically this single commodity was anything from livestock to wheat to 

cloth to metals to jewels. Over time the items that took this role were gold and silver because 

they were more easily exchanged, identified, carried, or divided. 

Hans: Although your in-class submission says he doesn’t, Marx argues exactly that all values are translated directly 

from labor input – as long as you mean total labor input, i.e., counting also the labor it takes to produce the means 

of production and materials used up. And if you ask where profits come from, Marx’s answer is: the laborer does 

not get paid an equivalent of the value which his labor creates. The decomposition of the value of the product into 

labor cost and profits shows who gets this value, not where this value comes from.


This is the kind of analysis of your original answer I am expecting when you make such a late resubmission 

(especially if you want to convince me that you have understood the basics of Marx’s theory despite your spotty 

participation), instead of wiping it under the carpet with the words “oh I missed something” and then starting a 

whole new answer. 


Question 202 is 126 in 1997ut, 175 in 2002fa, 178 in 2003fa, 205 in 2004fa, 222 in 

2007SP, 225 in 2007fa, 230 in 2008fa, and 236 in 2011fa: 

Question 202 How does the General Equivalent form of value express the labor represented 

in value not only negatively but also positively? 

[320] Diggity: graded A General Equivalent. From the early forms of the hunter-gatherer 

societies until now, there has been a progression and evolution of trade and commerce. The 

need to establish a uniform method of exchange is vital to the improvement of producing and 

selling goods. Before coined currency, goods were exchanged for different things as a result 

of their use value. Marx uses the example of Linen as a uniform exchange that is directly 

exchangeable. If you didn’t necessarily need the linen, it could be used to buy something 

you need. Likewise you could sell one of your goods for linen if you could not find anything 

to trade with that would meet your immediate needs. 

One of the bad things about the general equivalent is that it is socially constructed and is 

partially defined by society to determine how much linen a good is worth. This also ignores 

how much labor is put in to the production of linen, and its possible uses. 

Hans: Please see my [337]. 


[337] Hans: “Socially constructed”: good or bad? Hello Diggity, you wrote in [320]: 

One of the bad things about the general equivalent is that it is socially constructed 

and is partially defined by society to determine how much linen a 

good is worth. 

If socially constructed means for you that it depends on social conventions, fads, and 

advertising, then I can understand your objection to it. But Marx would probably argue here 

that it is exactly a good thing that the exchange proportions are no longer the result of individual 

bargaining but determined by a society-wide process. If every good is first exchanged 

against linen, this not only makes it easier to transfer this good to the final consumer, but it 

also shows the producers much more clearly whether too much or too little of that good is 

on the market, so that they can adjust their production schedules accordingly. 

When Marx says that the General equivalent is a better surface expression of what value 

really is, than the Expanded or Simple equivalent, then he is talking about the quality of 

the signals which the producers receive from the market transactions. (At least this is my 

interpretation of it.) 


[704] MK: Before the onset of a uniform method of payment or exchange, ie., money, 

commodities were exchanged based upon their use value. And here Marx uses the commodity 

linen as his example– if you had linen and needed to exchange for another commodity, 

you could exchange for any other commodity (he is using linen as an example of a uniform 


method of payment) and if you had another commodity that you did not need or desire you 

could exchange it for linen (or money) and be free to ‘purchase’ or freely exchange the linen 

for any other commodity. Whereas the original commodity that was exchanged for the linen 

may not be as readily exchangable. 

The negative may be that we depend too readily on our social relations to determine 

exchange values. 


[821] Gza: graded A All commodities express their values in the General Equivalent. The 

General Equivalent of commodities means all commodities are directly exchangeable with 

all other commodities. This also means a General Equivalent commodity is always going to 

have a demand and can be used to acquire, through trade, other commodities. The exchange 

ratio of a commodity is determined by society. The power to purchase all other commodities 

is a positive expression of the value of the General Equivalent of a commodity. Marx uses 

linen as an example to illustrate the positive and negative value of the General Equivalent 

of a commodity. He asserts there are “innumerable equations of which the general form of 

value” is a composite that equates the “labor realized in the linen with the labor contained in 

every other commodity” (Marx 159). This means weaving is converted in the general form 

of a manifestation of undifferentiated human labor. It is within this form labor is objectified 

in the very values of commodities produced. Value here is represented negatively as “labor in 

which abstraction is made from all the concrete forms and useful properties of actual work” 

(Marx 159). The positive representation of value is the “reduction of all kinds of actual 

labor to their common character of being human labor in general being the expenditure of 

human labor-power” (Marx 159). It is the General form of value that all products of labor 

are represented congealed quantities of human labor. This also shows that the generality 

of the form of value is a social expression of all commodities through general human labor 

forming certain social features. 

Hans: According to Marx’s definition of “directly exchangeable,” only the general equivalent is directly exchangeable 

with other commodities. Ordinary commodities are not directly exchangeable with each other. 


[829] TimJim: The general equivalent form of value expresses the labor represented both 

negatively and positively. The form negatively expresses labor by society (the market) giving 

an exchange value to a particular commodity. This is negative because it does not account for 

the amount of abstract labor that an individual puts into the commodity, but rather just gives 

an exchange value for the average amount of labor that is normally put into the commodity 

by the general population of producers. 

This however can be viewed as a positive aspect. The general equivalent form can give 

this commodity a general exchange value. With this general value, the market can come to 

an equilibrium with the supply and demand aspect. As Hans states in [337], “it shows the 

producers much more clearly whether too much or too little of that good is on the market.” 

Hans: The negative aspect is that the value is different from the use-value, and that the commodities have to go 

through the painful process of being sold on the market before the labor in them can be useful to their owner. 

Next Message by TimJim is [830]. 

[852] Ernesto: The general equivalent form takes a single commodity and uses it to base 

the exchange value of all other commodities from. A fur coat might be worth 25 pounds


of wheat while a hatchet is only worth 12.5 pounds of wheat. By reductionary logic, a fur 

coat is worth two hatchets. Wheat however remains the equivalent commodity by which all 

values will be fixed. The labor between the goods produced in essence will lose its unique 

qualities and gain a certain level of abstractness. At the same time, by the general equivalent 

method all labor is reduced to its raw form. 

Hans: It is wrong to say that the general equivalent reduces the labor. The general equivalent would not be possible 

if the labor were not reduced already. 


[907] Cdew: The General Equivalent form of value expresses the labor represented in 

value not only negatively but also positively by exchanging proportions that are not the 

result of individual bargaining but rather decided upon by society. Marx uses the Linen as 

a uniform exchange example to show that this is a good exchange by using linen as the first 

exchange for everything. 

This makes it easier to transfer goods to the final consumer and allows a tranferable good 

that when not needed could be used to buy other things needed. This is also considered a 

bad thing by the idea that it is decided by the society to provide the worth of linen allows 

producers to get a very good idea about the transfers made and whether or not there should 

be any increases or decreases in production which can lead to the producers controlling this 

linen market for their own benefits. 

Hans: You picked out just one aspect of the general equivalent: that it allows the exchange proportions to be 

determined by the market rather than making it a struggle between the two individuals. I don’t think this is the 

aspect Marx meant when he talked about “negatively” versus “positively.” 

Giving producers information which helps them to allocate their labor is generally a good thing. Of course, in 

a class society such information can be used to increase exploitation. 

Next Message by Cdew is [1213]. 

[914] Jimmie: graded A The general equivalent negatively expresses labor because the 

concrete labor that is used to produce a commodity may not be equal to the abstract labor 

that the general equivalent and the commodity exchange for. The general equivalent form of 

value expresses labor positively because once a general equivalent is decided, the commodity 

becomes directly exchangeable and can be used to buy other commodities. This allows for 

commodities to no longer be valued for the use-value of the equivalent commodities. The 

general equivalent commodity expresses value in every other commodity, hence you can 

value the abstract labor in the commodities against each other. 

Next Message by Jimmie is [920]. 

Exam Question 203 is 118 in 1995WI, 127 in 1996sp, 138 in 1997sp, 130 in 1997ut, 147 

in 1999SP, 156 in 2000fa, 163 in 2001fa, 177 in 2002fa, 180 in 2003fa, 207 in 2004fa, 

223 in 2007SP, 227 in 2007fa, 238 in 2011fa, and 248 in 2012fa: 

Exam Question 203 The difference between the Money form (under the gold standard) and 

the General equivalent form is small; nevertheless it has important implications. Elaborate. 

[342] Parmenio: (graded B+) Marx explains that any commodity can be the General 

equivalent form, but this is only so because all of the other commodities are “excluded from 

the ranks of all other commodities”, and is thus referred to as their equivalents. (Marx seems 

to use “universal equivalent form” and “General” form interchangeably). However only after 


this commodity becomes “finally” restricted to its final form and has “objective fixedness” 

and “general social validity”, does it become the Money form. 

Only after it becomes fixed does the commodity change from the General form into the 

Money form. He used linen as the form of value in the General equivalent form (form C), 

but Gold has conquered all the linens of the world and taken its position as the Money form 

(form D). Gold comes to monopolize because it previously dealt with the other commodities 

as a commodity, he says that it functioned as a single, isolated or Particular equivalent form 

prior to its monopoly; it slowly won out over all other forms. But only after it became the 

Money form (form D) did the General form (form C, which was perhaps used only locally or 

regionally, or because it was more convenient) become distinguished from the Money form 

(form D). 

So basically the Money form is more global or universal, it is a form C that now has been 

set by society, or monopolized all other equivalent forms. This is significant because it tells 

us that the local convenience has been taken over by money (one example that comes to 

mind is Tobacco and Liquor, both were used in early America, at different times, as form C, 

because they were convenient and at hand, but eventually lost out to specie, form D). 

Hans: You are saying a lot of stuff which is not quite relevant for the question, and your answer to the question 

itself is buried in those other things. I am looking for a simple and concise answer which explains what is the matter 

without me having to dig for it. 

Regarding your first Marx quote, you seem to be referring to the place where Marx says that a certain commodity 

(linen for instance, or gold) 

“is only in General equivalent form because and in so far as all other commodities exclude it 

from their ranks and refer to it as the equivalent” (i.e., treat it as the equivalent). 

In other words, gold is banished, it is expelled by the other commodities so that it can do its job as general equivalent. 

This shows the passivity of money, which has its apparent power only because of the activity of the other 

commodities. 

You didn’t copy the quote down correctly. Perhaps you didn’t believe that this is what Marx meant to say. 

This question is labeled “exam question”; therefore your answer is ungraded. 


Exam Question 207 is 166 in 2001fa, 184 in 2003fa, 211 in 2004fa, 227 in 2007SP, 239 


Exam Question 207 What is the difference between commodity fetishism and the fetish-like 

character of commodities? 

[395] Daleman: (graded A) Fetish-Like or just fetish? The difference between a commodity 

fetish and the fetish-like character of a commodity once again lies in the social realm 

not controlled by the owners of the commodity. The fetish-like character is in fact determined 

and owned by the commodity itself and not a result of the behavior of the consumer. 

While a commodity fetish is a capitalistic term implying that commodity fetish stems from 

consumer behavior. 

Message [395] referenced by [430]. Next Message by Daleman is [396]. 

[409] Gutter: (graded B) Commodity fetishism is manifest through members of society in 

which it serves. In the annotations Hans said, “Members of capitalist society often display 

fetishism.” This serves as the factor of differentiation as it indicates that commodities are 

created in such a way to entice individuals to either possess them for their own enjoyment,


or to have a means of value for exchange of other commodities. This enticement portrays 

the “fetish-like character of the commodity.” When members of society have an excessive 

attachment or regard for a commodity, it explains “commodity fetishism.” 

Hans: Apparently you read the Annotations but you still didn’t get what they said. Instead you used bits and pieces 

from the Annotations to embellish your own theory of the matter. It is often difficult to understand the meaning of 

a text which does not accord with one’s prior understanding, but it is an important skill to have. 

Message [409] referenced by [1940]. Next Message by Gutter is [872]. 

[419] Snake: “Commodity fetishism” is a false translation of Marx. A more correct 

translation would be “fetish-like character of commodity.” When capitalist society displays 

fetishism, commodities have a fetish like character. 

Message [419] referenced by [430]. Next Message by Snake is [420]. 

[430] Hans: Adding insult to injury. Question 207 is a designated exam question. It is 

an important question, whose answer can be found in the Annotations in the paragraph right 

before the question. The three people answering this question as a homework submission did 

not get a grade for it. However their answers counted towards the required two homework 

submissions before the first exam. 

Daleman made it very clear in [395] that the fetish-like character of the commodity is a 

social fact not controlled by the individuals and not caused by their behavior. Commodities 

have a fetish-like character on account of their properties which do not come from their 

physical makeup but from society. In capitalism, social relations do in fact go through 

things, this is an objective fact not dependent on people’s attitudes about commodities. I am 

glad Daleman emphasized and explained this, it seems to have had a good effect on later 

submissions. 

Fetishism, on the other hand, is a subjective attitude. How is this fetishism connected with 

the fetish-like character? Snake says in [419] that fetishism is the attitude which, if displayed 

widely in society, causes the commodities’ fetish-like character. This is probably the most 

straightforward way how they could be connected, but this is not how Marx tries to explain 

it. On the contrary, it is an attempt to explain social relations from individual behavior and 

attitudes, i.e., it is methodological individualism and idealism, both things heavily scorned 

by Marx. 

According to Marx, causality goes in the other direction: first comes the fetish-like character 

of commodities (which does not originate in individual attitudes but in the overall 

social organization of production), and then this fetish-like character of the commodities 

generates commodity fetishism. Why are people stricken twice? Isn’t it bad enough that 

they are deprived of their direct social ties with each other and have to deal with each other 

through things (which also totally confuses them about what is cause and what is effect)? 

Why are they, on top of this, condemned to fall in love with these things? 

In the Annotations I tried to explain this with the tar metaphor: if you have to handle 

things that are covered with tar, it is very difficult not to get tar on yourself. Now I think this 

is a too passive view of the role played by the individuals. In the First edition of Capital, 

Marx makes a very insightful remark about people: 

First, their relationship exists practically. Secondly, however, since they are 

humans, their relationship exists as a relationship for them. 


It is a very good thing that people want to be free and in control. Therefore even in a 

situation in which they are a conduit for social forces beyond their control, they try to make 

something out of it. Some of them protest against the alienating market relations and try to 

overcome them, others try to make their home in this alienation. This is how people are. 

Both reactions are expressions of the will to happiness, emancipation and liberation. We can 

only hope that the positive expressions of this will are strong enough to win out. 


[724] MK: Commodity fetishism– is a subjective attitude that put on display causes the 

very fetish like character of commodities. 

Fetish like character– social fact not controlled by an individual or their behavior. Commodities 

possess an fetish like character as their properties do not account for their physical 

or innate make up– but from social relations. 

Hans: You are saying that the fetish-like character comes from commoditiy fetishism. Marx would consider this 

to be idealism. 


Question 208 is 121 in 1995WI, 98 in 1995ut, 131 in 1996sp, 133 in 1996ut, 181 in 

2002fa, 185 in 2003fa, 212 in 2004fa, 228 in 2007SP, 233 in 2007fa, 238 in 2008fa, 251 


Question 208 Which evidence prompts Marx to say, at the beginning of the Commodity 

Fetishism section, that the commodity is “complicated” or “mysterious”? 

[420] Snake: The commodity is mysterious 

because the social relations in the commodities 

are not understood or controlled 

by the commodity owners. It is compli- 

(As Submitted:) it was mysterious because 

the social realations in the commodities 

would not understood or controlled by 

cated because the commodities have various commodity owners. It complicated because 

the commodities have various form and determinations. 

Form exchange of two commodities 

to the power of money to buy ev- 

forms and determinations: from exchange erything. 

of two commodities to the power of money 

to buy everything. 

Hans: Too many typos, but otherwise an accurate and concise answer. 

Next Message by Snake is [421]. 

Question 209 is 213 in 2004fa, 229 in 2007SP, 234 in 2007fa, 241 in 2008SP, 239 in 

2008fa, and 252 in 2009fa: 

Question 209 If the commodity, empirically, is not mysterious, but its scientific analysis 

says that it is mysterious, doesn’t this mean that the scientific analysis is wrong? 

[414] Thelonius: Scientific Analysis. I believe that Marx’s scientific analysis refers to a 

more critically objective consideration of what gives a commodity its true value. Though he 

discusses, to exhaustion, precisely all of the contributions to a commodity’s “value,” Marx 

proposes that there is an enigmatic or mysterious quality about a commodity once it has 

reached its exchange-value. He states:


“The mysterious character of the commodity-form consists therefore simply 

in the fact that the commodity reflects the social characteristics of men’s 

own labour as objective characteristics of the products of labour themselves, 

as the socio-natural properties of these things.” 

I would equate this assessment with the sentimentality behind a U.S. citizen’s purchase 

of a USA made car. One can deconstruct the values of the machine, which contribute to its 

sticker price, but many American car drivers also find a sense of humanistic sentimentality 

associated with the product of American ingenuity, manufacturing, domestic employment, 

etc, etc. . . Though an objective analysis may produce a figure associated with a commodity’s 

exchange-value, the actual exchange-value may differ for reasons which an empirical 

summary cannot define. This would reveal that there is also a discreet, or enigmatic value 

associated with the commodity in question, therefore, a scientific analysis stating that the 

exchange-value of a commodity is not altogether implicit, isn’t necessarily wrong. 

Hans: A customer in the US, who is willing to pay more for a car made in the US than for an identical car made in 

a foreign country, does not display commodity fetishism. On the contrary, this person is aware of his or her relation 

of interdependence and co-operation with the producers of the car. Commodity fetishism, as defined by Marx, 

forgets the social relations and considers the price of a commodity as a quasi natural attribute of the commodity. 


[421] Snake: Not really. Marx cannot prove out of the empirical experience with the 

commodity as evidence that it is mysterious. So the scientific analysis may be correct. 


Question 214 is 191 in 2003fa, 218 in 2004fa, 234 in 2007SP, and 239 in 2007fa: 

Question 214 In what respects is, according to Keynes, individual behavior irrational? 

[399] Bboarder: In his writings Keynes compares the stock market to a beauty contest. 

“The goal of the investor is often to pick the girl that others would consider prettiest rather 

than choosing the one he/she thinks is prettiest.” Keynes states that individuals tend to conform 

to the behavior of the majority or the average. What is irrational at the individual level 

becomes realistic at the social level. Many decisions are made based on what an individual 

thinks another individual may think, which is irrational. That’s why Keynes states the stock 

market can be subject to waves of optimistic or pessimistic sentiment even though there is 

no solid basis in reality for such perception. 

Hans: This herd behavior and “animal spirits” is one famous aspect of Keynes’s theory involving human irrationality. 

Another is Keynes’s contention that humans are too cautious and save too much, leading to the “paradox of 

thrift.” 

The difference between Keynes and Marx is that Keynes thinks the economic institutions are neutral in themselves 

but exacerbate human weaknesses, while Marx is stating that the economic structure itself is irrational; it 

traps and misguides individual desires for love, happiness, and freedom. 




Question 218 What is an “essential” property of something? What can be said in support 

of Marx’s claim that labor is “essentially” expenditure of human brain, nerves, muscles, 

sense organs, etc.? 


[410] Rogue: graded A– When referring to the “essential” components or properties of a 

given entity, what is meant are those attributes that are absolutely necessary, without regard 

to external considerations or supplemental properties. So when Marx contends that labor 

is “essentially” the expenditure of the human brain, nerves, muscles, sense organs, etc., I 

would assert that his claim is well founded. When viewing labor as a solo enterprise free of 

outside constraints, relations, or obligations, it boils down to the physical task of doing work. 

Not with regard to the physical definition of work, where an object is moved from a place of 

lower kinetic energy to one of a greater amount, but in the sense that a necessary task is being 

accomplished; that is, a task necessary to the well-being of the person performing the labor. 

The degree to which one man uses his eyes, brain, and fingers versus the other man who uses 

all of the muscles in his back, chest, shoulders, and legs in addition to his brain and sensory 

organs, is irrelevant. It seems to me that if broken down to its simplest form, essential labor 

is that performed on behalf of one’s own self. So when Marx makes this claim, he is, for the 

time being, neglecting the social relationship between a laborer and the owner of the means 

of production, the capitalist. This web of interaction can most certainly be considered an 

external consideration. When we bear in mind that, under capitalism, labor is performed for 

a wage, we see that the word “essential” takes on a connotation which regards the greater 

interest of the capitalist and not that of the workers’ welfare alone. 

Hans: The question was: which are the essential properties of the labor process, those without which labor isn’t 

labor. In part of your answer you seem to be confusing this with the other question: which types of labor are the 

most necessary? 

[412] Adamwest: The essential properties of a table. When I think of what an essential 

property of something is, what first comes to mind is what is required of the item. Say 

we were talking about a wood table, obviously an essential property of that table would be 

wood along with many other kinds of materials that are needed to create the table. I look at 

an essential property as something that makes an item what it is, they make up the nature or 

essence of the item. 

Regarding Marx’s claim that labor is “essentially” the expenditure of human brain, nerves, 

muscles, etc. I would agree with that claim. If we continue to look at the word “essentially” 

as what is required to make an item, or in this case to create labor it makes a lot of sense 

to me. Marx is simply stating that the human brain, nerves, muscles etc. are completely 

necessary in order for labor to exist. Without one of those components of labor I do not see 

how labor could exist. 

Hans: Even if a table is made of metal, glass, or plastic, it is still a table. I.e., being made of wood is not one of 

the essential properties of a table. 

You seem to be arguing along the lines: take the wood away from your dining room table, and the dishes would 

fall to the ground. This does not make wood an essential propery of tables. Your dog would not be able to survive 

without food. This does not make dog food an essential property of dogs. 

Message [412] referenced by [802] and [886]. Next Message by Adamwest is [594]. 

[413] Hans: The labor process is a practice with which we all are familiar. Nevertheless 

it contains two profound puzzles: 

(a) why is it possible for humans to change the world according to their intentions? Obviously, 

the course of the world is not predetermined by the laws of physics. What we want 

and do also matters.


(b) Why is this change so difficult, why can it not be done automatically (or can it be 

done automatically but we haven’t yet figured out how)? 

Question 218 focuses on point (b), but it might be useful to look at it in this broader 

philosophical context. 

A third question is then, of course, also: 

(c) if human activity is so ingenious in making nature subservient to human purposes, 

why do we not have control over our own social relations? 

This is the subject of the section about the fetish-like character of commodities. 


[416] Will: graded B+ Essential Property. The essential property of something in terms 

of Marx’s view can be best explained by production can not be if no human activity is used 

in producing a product. So the essential property of a given good is the amount of human 

expenditure that it took to produce that good. This could contend that the more brain, nerves, 

muscles, and sense organs used in producing a given good could in retrospect be worth 

more in terms of a commodity; with that a given good that used more concrete labor or the 

expenditure of energy could be worth more in terms of how many pieces of linen that good 

could be worth. So in other terms the essential property of good is the amount of energy 

output that that good took to be produced; although, in more recent times goods can also 

be services and the overall expenditure of human energy can be broken down into services. 

With that a certain service could be worth so many yards of linen. Overall, the most honest 

answer to the question of essential labor is that it is performed in the direct interest of the 

person producing the good. It does not, however, explain the overall essential labor of other 

entities with in an organization, those of which use more of their brain rather than their 

muscles. In context the essential property of labor is the necessary production of one laborer 

to produce a good. 

Hans: Your first sentence is more profound and surprising than it seems. Why does Marx make such a close 

connection between production and humans? Is there justification for this? You are examining various theoretical 

issues in your answer, but you are overlooking the greatest puzzle of them all. 

Message [416] referenced by [425]. Next Message by Will is [578]. 

[418] Matt: I think the essential property of something is the central component that 

makes up the good. I think the best way to think about it is by looking at Marx’s example of a 

table. You start with a tree and then from that tree you can make a table. Even though the tree 

is transformed into something different through means of production the central or essential 

component of that product is still wood. It’s more of the building block in which something 

is derived. In support of Marx and his claim that labor is “essentially” expenditure of the 

human brain, nerves, muscles, etc. we can conclude that Marx is referring to the central 

components that drive or make up labor. Something can not be produced without some 

kind of labor. Taking a more in depth look you can see that the force driving it is abstract 

labor. It is the effort and exertion of energy by the brain, nerves, muscles, etc that ultimately 

drive the labor needed to produce something. The amount of effort needed or energy needed 

for production might change but I think that the functions of human organisms are what 

ultimately make up labor. 

Hans: See my [510]. 



[422] Snake: essential properties something is the thing is more important and requirement. 

He support the labor as is essentially the expenditure of human brain, nerves, muscles. 

Sound like the labour itself like muscle nerves and brain in human body, it requirement to 

cooperation, capital like brain, nerve muscle whatever like the labour. 


[425] Keltose: graded A– First I want to comment on Will’s answer [416] and agree 

with his analysis. However, I would like to focus more on the aspect that the body can be 

viewed as a machine with many parts and motors. The same way we view those parts as 

a homogeneous mass, we also view the various functioning parts of our bodies as part of 

this mass, and even as Hans points out: “that labor-powers be treated by society as parts of 

the same homogeneous mass.” I think what Marx wants to make clear here is that when a 

laborer spends human brain, nerves, muscles, sense organs, etc. to the production process, 

those efforts/expenditures become the property of that particular good. It requires the efforts 

of many small functions of our body to complete a task. Labor is just that. One can see on 

an assembly line for example, it is a long process of small tasks. All these aspects of labor 

can be broken down to many small functions. Marx opened my eyes on this, I had never 

though about how much really goes into the labor process. 


[426] Danske: Understanding the essential property of an item would seem to be as 

straight forward and trivial as the nature of a commodity. Certainly the basic aspects of 

the labor that make up value would seem to be obvious. This aspect of labor is made up 

of those aspects of human brain nerve and muscle, but are we to only consider the current 

expenditure of these resources? There exists in each commodity a portion of value derived 

from its historical pedigree. These aspects are a portion of the mysterious nature that Marx 

refers to. A given commodity can be viewed in this historical context with the understanding 

that this value too derives from the expenditure of brain, nerve, and muscle. Finding a current 

worth for these past contributions begins to demonstrate the difficulty that Marx found with 

the standard definition of the value derived from the production process. 

Exploring these avenues as well as those involving the emotional values attached to commodities 

lead to the need of a broad and in-depth understanding of their nature before any 

sort of accurate description of the value can be found 

Hans: Marx was not talking about value here but about the labor process in general. 


[510] Hans: You are what you eat. The slogan “you are what you eat” seems so obvious: 

almost every molecule in our body must at some time have been ingested by us as food or 

inhaled by our breathing. Nevertheless this seemingly obvious truth is, at best, only a halftruth. 

We are much more than what we eat. Our food accounts for our material being but not 

for our human essence (i.e. for that what makes us humans). 

Usually, the materials of which something is composed, or the inputs necessary to produce 

it, do not account for the essence of that thing; they are only its material carriers, and 

the thing itself is bigger than its parts. 

Marx’s claim that every labor process is essentially the expenditure of human brain, nerve, 

muscle, etc., is an exception to this rule. Here is an input which is not just a material carrier


but which belongs to the essence of the process for which it is an input. How so? I think 

Marx is speaking here of the following dilemma: the human labor process has the purpose 

to nourish us and extend our powers. But this cannot be done without spending ourselves: 

we can only extend our powers by consuming them. A similar insight is given in the biblical 

verse: 

“By the sweat of your face will you eat bread until you return to the ground, 

for out of it you were taken. For you are dust, and to dust you shall return.” 

(Genesis 3:19) 

We can raise ourselves above dust, but it takes work. 

Thelonius: You are writing: 

“We are much more than what we eat. Our food accounts for our material being but not for 

our human essence (i.e. for that what makes us humans).” 

Aha! So what distinguishes us from the lower animals? Animals have instictive function, or “work” and have that 

work produce something. So what is the essential difference between a house and an Eagle’s nest, or a Bear’s den? 

MrPink: indoor plumbing :) 

Hans: You are right, Thelonius. I was wrong to draw the big dividing line between humans and animals, I should 

have drawn it between living beings and non-living beings. 

Message [510] referenced by [418], [736], [886], and [2012fa:228]. Next Message by Hans is [523]. 

[736] BonzoIsGod: graded A– An essential property of something means that the property 

is required for that something to attain its full value. Marx’s claim is logical because all of 

these aspects are required of “human labor,” which is in turn serving the purpose to better our 

situation. Marx did not list parts like the spleen or the kidney, because these are organs that 

humans can function without. But if a heart or a brain are pulled from a human, that human 

is then deemed “useless” from a labor standpoint, which deters the process of “improving” 

society. “We can only extend our powers by consuming them” (Hans in [510]). 

Hans: You should leave “value” out of this. The essential properties are those properties which make the things 

what they are. 

Message [736] referenced by [2010fa:206]. Next Message by BonzoIsGod is [737]. 

[741] McDugall: graded A An essential property of an item is a property which, if removed, 

would change the item from is intended use. More specifically the more alterations 

or changes made to something the more it is unlike its original self. Example, say you have 

one hydrogen atom and you add another hydrogen atom. You would have H2 and since two 

hydrogen atoms bond with Oxygen they would combine to be H20. The original hydrogen 

atom is still present but it has been altered in such a way the original properties of hydrogen 

are almost mute. When something is removed from the human body, the human body as a 

whole, will not function the same. When Marx says human labor is essentially the expenditure 

of human brain, nerves, etc. he means all of those human activities and body functions 

are required to produce labor. If you remove the brain of a human they will cease to be able 

to produce any recognizable form of labor. Since labor is the activity desired removing any 

of the human properties would cause the labor to not occur. Therefore the human body needs 

to be intact to produce labor, this being an essential part of labor. 


[765] Bob: The essential property of something would have to be the actual production 

of the commodity. One of the main incentives for production would include the use-values 

and more importantly the exchange-values. This is what would motivate the production. 


Marx stated that labor is “essentially” an expenditure of the human brain, nerves, muscles, 

sense organs, etc. He said this to help us understand what causes labor to be better and 

more productive. It depends on the quality that the human brain, nerves, muscles, and sense 

organs work. If they are not functioning well the labor will not produce as much or at as 

great a quality as if they were working well. The problem however is that no matter what, 

the physiological truth makes it possible for us to say that all labor is a homogeneous mass 

because the human activity requires effort. Our bodies are functioning to produce is labor. 


[774] Tink: graded A An essential property of something is the part of that “something” 

which makes it what it is. When Marx claims that labor is “essentially expenditure of human 

brain nerves, muscles, sense organs etc” he is illustrating that the “labor” process for a human 

being requires those elements of the body, because that is what makes labor what labor 

is: a human being doing something. Without those “essential” elements, ‘labor’ would be 

understood as something completely different, and thus would no longer be ‘labor’. An 

essential part of something cannot be taken away for that something to remain intact. 

Next Message by Tink is [775]. 

[802] Adamwest: Essential properties. An “essential” property of something is the 

materials required for that item to exist, they make up the nature or essence of the item. 

Take for example if I tried to convince you that a piece of carpet was a desk. There are many 

properties that a desk requires to be in fact a desk. No matter how hard I tried to tell you that 

carpet is a desk, it would never be true. A piece of carpet has none of the characteristics of 

a desk. 

When Marx claimed that labor is “essentially” expenditure of human brain, nerves, muscles, 

and sense organs he was saying that these are the essential parts of labor. Each of these 

essiantial parts of labor are very vital to the labor process. Take away one of these key items 

and labor would be impossible. 

Hans: You are saying right and wrong things side by side. Your argument that a rug is not a desk is exactly right. 

But there is a difference between the properties that a desk requires to be in fact a desk, and the materials required 

for the desk to exist. The materials required for the desk to exist are not its essential properties. See also my remarks 

to your [412]. 

Next Message by Adamwest is [1022]. 

[808] Bosox: An “essential” property of something is that which is required for something 

to function or to be useful. For a sledge hammer to be useful its head needs to be hard and 

made out of a hard metal or steel product. The “essential” property is that which makes an 

item what it is, its essence. To make labor exist, the “essential” expenditure of human brain, 

nerves, muscles, sense organs etc. are needed. Labor could not exist without one of these 

key components. They are “essential” for any labor to become productive or useful to man 

or society in general. 


[810] Mullin: Suppose that you were asked the following question, “why are you attending 

school or your job?” What would be your response? Would it be, “I couldn’t find any 

other way to expend my brain, nerves, muscles, sense organs, etc.?” I believe it safe to assume 

that this would not be the response the would flow from your lips. Am I accurate in 

my assumption?


Our class discussion was insightful as to this question but as Hans was quick to remind 

us the essential property of an item doesn’t lie in what is used to make the item, for this 

elements can surely be replaced by another type of material allowing for the same desired 

outcome. When a table, made of wood, is composed it is done to fill a purpose. This being 

to support the items that rest thereon, and to provide a sense of design to the room in which 

it rests. You can’t argue that the wood is essential for it can be easily replaces with glass or 

any other material and the same desired outcome will be achieved. 

Saying that labor is essentially expenditure of human brain, nerves, muscles, sense organs, 

etc. is an exception to any rule previously drawn on this topic (per Hans’ insight). 

Why? As we expend these energies, inputs, our motive is to make something out of these inputs 

that could not otherwise be produced without the expenditure of said inputs. The human 

body is thus an exception to the commonplace rule in the marketplace; for the outputs that 

we produce are impossible to obtain without the essential expenditure of the inputs. These 

inputs become essential as they cannot be replaced by any other stimulus or element. They 

are not manmade and are unique to each individual and their characteristics are unknown to 

most, at times even to the individual. Humans are unique in their essential inputs and as a 

result the outputs cannot be replicated by the market. 

Next Message by Mullin is [1214]. 

[828] Avatar: graded A An “essential” property of something is a property of a “thing” 

that must be present for it to be that “thing.” In other words, an essential property is a 

necessary component of a thing. When Marx discusses what labor “essentially” is, he is 

saying something about the necessity of “human brain, nerves, muscles, sense organs, etc.” 

for labor to exist and also about the purity of those, “human brain, nerves, muscles.” Support 

of Marx’s claim about labor’s essence can be found in a brief discussion about what labor 

is and isn’t. First, the claim qualifies labor as something only labor can do. In production, 

when a mechanical device is used, the labor being performed is the past labor of “human 

brain, nerves, muscles.” that is stored in the apparatus, not the machine doing the labor. The 

“human” aspect of labor in the concrete form is what makes it pure – Marx might say that 

humans are by nature, “essentially” laborers. 


[834] Jerm: The “essential” property of something that Marx is referring to is the property 

that the thing would not be what it is if it did not have that property. Marx states that labor 

is “essentially” expenditure of human brain, nerves, muscles, sense organs, etc. I agree with 

Marx because he is stating the obvious. Labor is the human effort put into producing a 

commodity. In order for that human to be producing they must be using their brain, nerves, 

muscles, and sense organs to do so. Marx says that it is a physiological truth that these things 

are functions of the human organism. 

Hans: It is obvious that labor could not exist without the expenditure of human effort; it is not quite as obvious to 

say that labor would not be what it is without that expenditure. 

Next Message by Jerm is [835]. 

[842] Tesa: graded A Setting the stage. The essential property of a thing is the core of its 

nature; the basic unit of the thing. When Marx talks about labor being essentially expenditure 

of human brain etc. etc., he is setting up an explanation of abstract labor. He is finding 

and defining the unit of labor-power that can be a common denominator for measurement 


of value. He is describing what labor is by standards that everyone would agree with or 

understand, in order to be able to define abstract labor clearly. Work is work by anyone’s 

standards, regardless if it is the mental task of resolving financial problems for a company 

or the physical task of laying bricks for a new building. 


[879] Diggity: graded B– As I said in [878], raw materials have little or no worth until 

transformed by labor. The seed has no value until labor is used to nourish and create favorable 

conditions for the seed to grow. Even then it needs to be gathered by more laborers. 

If left unattended, the seed may not even grow, or may grow and the fruit spoil. Also with 

the brain, nerves, muscles, sense organs, etc. They are of no worth unless put in motion and 

used where they best can fulfill their capability. The essential part can also be categorized as 

the job or use where that product is most useful. 

Hans: Beware that you are not useful for the wrong thing. 

Next Message by Diggity is [1212]. 

[886] Matt: I think the essential property of something is the central component that 

makes up the good. I think the best way to think about it is by looking at Marx’s example 

of a table. You start with a tree and then from that tree you can make a table. Even though 

the tree is transformed into something different through means of production the central or 

essential component of that product is still wood. It’s more of the building block in which 

something is derived. Now when refering to labor we can see that the expenditure of the 

human brain, nerves, muscles, sense organs, etc. are what allows us to create labor. The use 

of abstract labor is what allows us to transform something into a commodity. But we would 

not be able to use the necessary energy it takes to transform something into a commodity 

without the use of the human brain, nerves, muscles, sense organs, etc. 

Hans: This is very similar to your [418]. I wrote a response in [510] which you apparently did not take into 

consideration. Also my commentary to [412] argues that wood is not essential for something being a table. 

Next Message by Matt is [1067]. 

[892] Karlwho: graded A– When Marx states that labor is “essentially” the expenditure 

of human brain, nerves, muscles, sense organ, etc. he is suggesting that the brain, nerves, 

muscles, sense organ, etc. that make up the human organism are the exact things that make 

humans humans. Therefore, if labor is exclusively a human characteristic, it requires the 

expenditure of the components of the human organism and the labor is performed. 

Hans: Nerves and muscles allow humans to exist, but they are not what makes them humans. Dogs have nerves 

and muscles too. The things which make humans human are their consciousness, their love and morality, their 

intelligence. 


[902] Miron: An essential property of something is when your body is forced to depend 

on all other labor parts for its survival. Labor is thus dependent on many things and to get 

yourself to the final product everything is so called “essential”. When Marx states that labor 

is “essentially expenditure of human brain nerves, muscles, sense organs” he is illustrating 

that the labor process for a human being needs specific parts of its body to survive. This 

is similar to the production process in Japan where everyone serves a specific role in the 

production of say a car. Each person is part of the labor and if one person messes up the 

entire labor line is messed up. 

Hans: According to your definition, any condition of something is an essential part of it. This is not what “essentially” 

means.


Next Message by Miron is [960]. 

[923] Tiny: There exists in a body, a mental and physical structure of a human being 

which are set in motion when it produces a use-value of any kind. A person must be a free 

proprietor of his own labour-capacity. He must give it in lump sums and not all of himself; 

otherwise he is selling himself and going from being a free man to a slave. (Marx, 270) 

Each us of has an amount of value or capacity to allow us to work. We produce our own 

power and it’s important for us to disperse our energy and manpower in time, otherwise we 

would overwork ourselves and we wouldn’t be taking care of ourselves. There is a lot needed 

for our bodies to function well and those things include; food, clothing, commodities, and 

fuel. 

The value of labour-power is determined, as in the case of every other commodity, by 

the labour-time necessary for the production, and consequently also the reproduction. The 

production of labour-power consists in the preproduction of himself or his maintenance. 

(Marx, 274) 

Without maintaining our bodies, we will by replaced because of death and “wear and 

tear.” Our bodies need each part to function properly. We need to take care of them so that 

each function can properly assist other areas. Otherwise, these areas will need to be replaced, 

fixed, improved or constantly supervised. 

Hans: Marx is not talking about capitalism or slavery here but about the labor process in general. 


Question 219 is 197 in 2003fa, 224 in 2004fa, 239 in 2007SP, 251 in 2008SP, 249 in 


Question 219 Do you know production processes which do not require human effort? 

[398] DarkKnight: graded A Production processes and human effort. The term “production 

process” implies that there has been some sort of change in the material now considered 

a commodity. I didn’t take the question to include distribution as a part of production. 

Picking up an oddly shaped rock (which looks like the spitting image of Karl Marx) and selling 

it as a novelty on E-Bay might earn you some money, but it did not involve a production 

process. 

So, sticking with a strict interpretation of the question, it would seem obvious that production 

processes can only be 1) human driven or 2) nature driven. Man or nature changes 

or evolves the material from its original form into something else: the product. The most 

obvious form of nature driven production would be in the realm of agriculture. Between 

sowing and reaping there is a season where nature has the greatest influence on the quality 

of the harvest, independent of human influence. This is merely an example of a more 

minimal human-influenced production process, as opposed to manufacturing a car, where 

nature provides the material but not the production. Of course, after the harvest there is 

much human effort used to get the commodity to the market. 

There exist in nature such things as orchards of wild fruit. Untouched by human hands, 

these fruit trees can produce abundantly. However, this fruit cannot find its way to the 

marketplace and be treated as a commodity until it has been transported to the marketplace 


and that is where the human labor is congealed in the “fruit as a commodity”. This should 

answer the age-old question: “If a wild apple falls to the floor of a forest and no one is around 

to pick it up, does it have value?” Every example of a production process that I could think 

of has, at some point, involved human labor from which Marx tells us the value is created. 

So, the short answer is: there are some things which are produced without human effort 

which can have the potential of being a commodity, but they cannot enter into the world of 

commodities and marketplaces without the human intervention which gives them value. 



Question 228 What corresponds to what in the example with the eye? Give a list of correspondences, 

like: retina—capitalist class (this one is of course a joke), etc. To what extent 

is this an appropriate example, and where does the analogy have its limits? 

[402] Bob: Eye analogy. This has been a tough analogy to keep straight in my head. I 

understand Marx is comparing the eye and the act of seeing to commodity production. In a 

way he is trying to help us understand what comes from labor. Table 1.1 in the annotations 

is helpful, but takes some time to soak in. It shows that an object stimulating your optical 

nerve is like the relation of your labor to social aggregate labor. Then it says the shape or 

image sent to your brain is like the exchange-value that is produced with your labor for the 

commodity. Finally the table explains that the image you see in your eye is from the physical 

object, and the physical properties of the commodity produced are from your labor. 

So, to sum it up a little more simply, we can’t see an object without our eyes and we can’ 

have the exchange-value and other properties of a commodity without our own work. The 

actual work may be labor for someone else in hopes of exchange for something we want. 

This is what generates the labor from us, and the future exchange. 

An interesting thought to go with this analogy is that our eyes are stimulating the optic 

nerve without light. They send a chemical out, and it’s when light enters a change takes place 

and the image is seen. It’s kind of backwards, but it works for us. The comparison I thought 

of is it’s the same with labor. We will continue to produce even when we have no need or 

anyone to exchange. It is in hopes of a future exchange and an expected exchange-value. 

I think this analogy is okay with many limitations. It seems sometimes we try to define 

something too much and we make it even more complex. This can be very true with the eye 

analogy. Marx also goes on to explain we may see things that aren’t there. It is the same 

with commodity properties that are socially generated. The idea of intransitive and transitive 

are also discussed which parallels with optical illusions. 


Question 231 is 134 in 1995WI, 111 in 1995ut, 144 in 1996sp, 146 in 1996ut, 159 in 

1998WI, 166 in 1999SP, 187 in 2001fa, 201 in 2002fa, 208 in 2003fa, 236 in 2004fa, 

251 in 2007SP, 256 in 2007fa, 261 in 2008fa, 275 in 2009fa, 303 in 2010fa, and 277 in 

2011fa: 

Question 231 How does Marx’s use of the term “fetishism” compare with its modern dictionary 

definition?


[401] Karlwho: graded A– I looked up “fetishism” using the Merriam-Webster on-line 

dictionary. The definitions are as follows: 

1 : belief in magical fetishes 

2 : extravagant irrational devotion 

3 : the pathological displacement of erotic interest and satisfaction to a fetish. 

I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure Marx was not describing “fetishism” as the belief 

in magical fetishes. Nor do I believe Marx had a pathological displacement of erotic interest 

and satisfaction to the fetishism of the commodity. In short, the only definition that seems to 

fit here is the second definition: extravagant irrational devotion. 

I believe Marx was not referring to this “fetishism” for commodities, as we define “fetishism” 

in our modern day. We know in economics that consumers are rational and, therefore, try to 

maximize utility. I don’t think Marx would use a word that has the word “irrational” in the 

definition. Marx describes it as “the fetishism which attaches itself to the products of labor 

as soon as they are produced as commodities, and is therefore inseparable from the production 

of commodities.” The commodity has a power attached to it, because it is a product of 

men’s labor. The power is the “fetishism” of the commodity which emerges from the social 

character of the labor that produced the commodity. 

Hans: I am a little puzzled by your remark: 

I don’t think Marx would use a word that has the word “irrational” in the definition. 

Marx’s overall perspective was that capitalism must be overcome, because it is, or has become, irrational (or worse). 

Marx is not afraid to say that something is flawed or bad if his scientific analysis indicates that it is so. Modern 

sciences try to exclude value judgments. Marx’s critical view of the world and practice-oriented view of science, 

by contrast, implies that it is possible to analyze something scientifically and come to the conclusion that it is bad 

and needs to be abolished. 


[407] Thugtorious: graded A In most of its uses today, the word “fetish” has somewhat of 

a sexual connotation. However, the sexually derived definition is the third definition given 

in Webster’s Dictionary. Marx used the word “fetishism” or “fetish-like characteristic” to 

mean that consumers view commodities as possessing certain traits that the commodity does 

not naturally possess. In other words, the social relations that the laborer undertook in 

production are now viewed as being part of the commodity instead of coming from their 

own expenditure of human labor power. The modern definition is close to this, but in a 

broader sense: “an object of irrational reverence or obsessive devotion”, or “extravagant 

irrational devotion.” The underlying cause for this devotion to a fetish is that you give an 

act, idea, or tangible thing qualities above and beyond those that it truly possesses. Marx’s 

fetishism of commodities goes even further by saying that these social qualities given to a 

commodity actually come from the labor and social relations congealed in the commodity, 

but we are blind to this phenomenon and see the commodity as possessing these qualities 

via its own virtue. 

Just as much as a modern day fetish, a lot of this devotion vis-a-vis reification of these 

social relations in the commodity is mostly psychological. As Hans says, when Marx uses 

the words “inseparable” and “sticks to,” these denote that it is something not intrinsic to the 

commodity, and can be overcome “by great effort by those who handle commodities.” 


All in all, I believe that the modern definition gives the prima facie explanation of the 

word, while Marx’s analysis gives the underlying cause or reason for the fetishism of commodities. 


Question 232 is 135 in 1995WI, 112 in 1995ut, 145 in 1996sp, 152 in 1997WI, 159 in 

1997sp, 152 in 1997ut, 202 in 2002fa, 209 in 2003fa, 237 in 2004fa, 257 in 2007fa, 264 


Question 232 Modern advertising specialists know that consumers often buy a certain 

product not because they need this particular article, but because they are trying to compensate 

for other unmet needs. These compensatory demands are important for the economy 

because they are insatiable. Advertising addresses them whenever it suggests that social 

recognition, happiness, etc. are connected with the possession of a certain object. 

Is this what Marx meant by the “fetish-like character of the commodity,” or does it contradict 

it, or would Marx’s theory give rise to amendments of this theory? 

[487] Aaron: This not contradictory to what Marx was saying about the “fetish-Like character 

of a commodity,” however it is not entirely accurate. It would be better to use Marx’s 

definition to amend the theory. Marx describes Fetish-Like Character as the prerequisite 

of Commodity Fetishism and says the Fetish-Like character is the indirect relationship between 

producers of two commodities, and that they will relate to each other through their 

commodities. So in the question it refers to people only relating to each other through material 

commodities. In terms of advertising and the insatiability for happiness from these 

commodities this is a tangent from what Marx was describing. He was using the term to 

describe that the social connection stemming from commodities that comes from the two 

producers seeking out each only in terms of exchange-values for their respective goods; not 

happiness. The material commodities create an indirect social relationship, but it has to do 

the inherent abstract labor in the commodities and that the producers are simply blind to this 

fact and see only the exchange-value for their commodities, and thus would seek each other 

out to exchange for subsistence. 

Hans: You have good thoughts, but it takes a lot of concentration to read your essay. Some of your sentences are 

too convoluted, at least one is mal-formed. The work you would need to make your presentation easier to read will 

probably also help you clarify your thinking. 

Adam: Modern advertising attempts to create needs. Does a ten-year-old “need” a cell phone, or are the parents 

who purchased the cell phone compensating for unmet needs? I do not believe so. I think my example better defines 

what Marx meant by the “fetish-like character of the commodity.” The parent or child views the advertisement, and 

the cell phone becomes, in their minds, a socially desirable and necessary commodity. Maybe the unmet needs are 

a disconnect between what is truly needed, versus insatiable desires. 

Hans: Cell phones are a very good counterexample for the thesis expressed in the question. They are a means to 

create social connections, not a compensation for social isolation. 


Multiple Choice Question 248 is 201 in 2001fa and 215 in 2002fa: 

Multiple Choice Question 248 When Marx writes “value does not have it written on its 

forehead what it is” he means one of the following. Which is it: 

(a) It is difficult to know how much value a commodity has because this value changes in 

time and place.


(b) The value of something is subjective and changes from person to person. 

(c) People do not deliberately equalize their labors and therefore do not know that commodities 

are exchangeable because they contain equal human labor. 

(d) It is bad business practice to let the customers know the true value of the things one is 

selling. 

(e) One should not fix the price of what one is selling before one knows what the customer 

is able to pay. 

[727] MK: (c) 


Exam Question 249 is 173 in 1998WI, 180 in 1999SP, 202 in 2001fa, 216 in 2002fa, 224 in 

2003fa, 254 in 2004fa, 269 in 2007SP, 292 in 2009fa, 320 in 2010fa, and 298 in 2011fa: 

Exam Question 249 How can someone who understands that value comes from labor still 

have a fetishistic view of social relations under capitalism? 

[482] Tesa: (graded A) Social Lag. Society, in general, moves very slowly in regards 

to accepting and adapting to new ideas. Especially ideas that are incompatible with their 

understanding of reality. For example the ideas that the world revolves around the sun, or 

that the world is round, were known long before they were widely accepted by society. But 

because it was incongruent with their well established beliefs it was rejected. A perfect 

example of people understanding that value comes from labor but still having a fetishistic 

view is the average Wal-Mart consumer. Nearly everyone I talk to who shops there is aware 

that Wal-Mart exploits their workers and has a damaging effect on the small businesses in 

the surrounding areas. Yet they continue to shop there because the prices are lower or they 

like the convenience of just going to one place to get everything, whereas in the past they 

might have gone to Joe’s store to get bread, and Frank’s store to get tools etc. They may even 

understand that once Joe’s and Frank’s stores close Wal-mart will be free to raise the prices 

for lack of competition, but the socially accepted idea “getting more for your money” is more 

natural to their reality, or more congruent to their way of life. And if they do shop at Joe’s it 

won’t make a difference anyway because the “masses” shop at Wal-Mart and therefore the 

closure of Joe’s and Frank’s stores is inevitable. In other words they may not feel good about 

it, but they don’t believe they can make a difference. 

Hans: People know that the growth of Walmart is not good for them, but they don’t think they can make a difference. 

This is fetishism, the view that social and economic laws are unchangeable, despite the fact that we are the 

ones who make them happen. 

Message [482] referenced by [2007SP:279] and [2008SP:841]. Next Message by Tesa is [611]. 

[508] Snake: Human’s behavior is hard to change, or not willing to change, for the 

capitalism, the mainstream of character is capitalists, they don’t really like to see value 

come from labor, which means labor becomes more important, they refuse to accept this. 


[513] Manchu: In this particular part of the reading Marx is talking about the bourgeois 

political economony. Ricardo, Smith, Mill were looking at value and all thought that they 

discovered that exchange relationship commodities were based on abstract labor. If they 

believed that why would this fetish still exist? The falsehood is that they were focusing 

on the exchange value (how much labor went into producing my corn or cotton) when what 


determines exchange value is the ratios of the abstract amount of labor in buying one product 

over another product. We are only looking at what happens at the surface and not what 

happens at the core. 

Hans: I don’t understand your argument. 

Manchu: It concerns me that what i tried to convey to you in my question was only what i learned at the review 

session on Saturday. 

Hans: Perhaps you have the right answer in your head, I don’t know. I simply didn’t understand what you were 

trying to say. 


[519] McDugall: (graded B) All commodity-producing societies possess fetish-like characteristics. 

These characteristics are inherent to the society due to the foundation that is set 

in that type of society. There are three categories of value: 

1.) Abstract Human Labor 

2.) How long it takes on average for society to produce something 

3.) Form 

Although we must consider that all societies have value perceptions. The fetish-like characteristics 

occur when society assigns a value to a particular item which has a certain label. 

Ex. Evian water is considered to be “premium” water because it is from France. People pay 

a premium for Evian when there is Poland Spring water available cheaper but demands a 

lower value because society perceives Maine to be sub par to France. This implied difference 

is fetish-like because similar forms of labor are used to bottle and distribute the water 

bottles. They possess the same qualities but demand different prices. When someone who 

understands the system still exhibits fetish-like view of an item is happens on the producer 

level. Also, one must focus on the core vs the surface comparisons that can differ greatly. 

Hans: The fetish-like character goes much deeper than the fad around French water. 



2007fa, 281 in 2008SP, 321 in 2010fa, 299 in 2011fa, and 312 in 2012fa: 

Question 250 Marx criticizes that even after the discovery that labor was the substance of 

value, this was generally considered an “immutable fact.” What else should people have 

thought and done? 

[509] Snake: After the scientific dis- (As Submitted:) After the scientific discovery 

of classical economists that value covery of classical economist value come 

comes from labor, they still have a fetishistic from labor, they still have a fetishistic view 

view of social relations under capitalisms. of social relations under capitalisms, did not 

remove the fetish like character. Max ex- 

This discovery did not remove the fetish plain the people see that as a immutable law 

like character. Max explains that people and cant not change by human even they 

see that as a immutable law which cannot 

be changed by humans even if they under- 

understood, just like nuclear weapon, every 

stand. Just like nuclear weapons: everybody one know witch was dangerous to the earth,

knows that they are dangerous to the earth, 

but the country still produces them. It is 

something that is uncontrollable by the individual. 

Hans: Great example! 

First Message by Snake is [419]. 


but the country still product them, something 

was uncontrollable, by individual. 

Question 252 is 160 in 1996sp, 173 in 1997sp, 165 in 1997ut, 194 in 2000fa, 205 in 

2001fa, 219 in 2002fa, 227 in 2003fa, 257 in 2004fa, 272 in 2007SP, 277 in 2007fa, 283 


Question 252 Commodity producers do not exchange their products because they consider 

the labor in these products to be equal and therefore believe the fruits of the labor should 

be distributed on an equal basis. Marx claims that, on the contrary, the market interactions 

induce them to unknowingly equalize their labors. Describe the process by which they 

equalize their labors, and the goals which they pursue in this process. 

[488] Aaron: Because in looking at the social relationship between producer A and producer 

B, one could observe that they are only indirectly related to each through their commodities. 

They are only concerned with the exchange-value of their respective goods and 

to do not take the time to further analyze the true value, which is the abstract labor that is 

not seen on the surface. In the case of the linen being a commodity in the general form 

it first was described in the expanded form where one could express the amount of commodities 

they could get for their linen. After this exchange has been completed, over time 

the merchants or producers of the other commodities realize they can seek out the same 

amount of linen for their produced commodities and express the exchange value of say their 

“shoes” in terms of how much linen. So it is a cyclical relationship that must be expressed 

as exchange values because of the form that value takes in a particular commodity is the 

superficial representation that people will see in the market. Not the hidden abstract labor 

that is embodied in all commodities. They equalize their labors by seeking out each other 

and by “exchange” trade one commodity for another thus saying that they are equal. And a 

commodity’s exchange-value is derived from the abstract labor value that Marx says is the 

commonality in all commodities. 

Hans: You repeat that commodity producers equalize their labors but you do not say concretely how they do this. 


[504] SueGirl: graded A Adding to Aaron’s comments. In addition to Aaron’s comments 

[488], I would like to add more about the process by which producers equalize their 

labors and the goals which they pursue in the process. Labors are equalized when pressure 

is placed upon producers through market interactions. 

For example, there are two pairs of jeans at the mall. One pair is made in the U.S.A and 

costs $84.00. The other pair of jeans costs $25.00 and they are made in a factory in China. 

The jeans look similar enough and both fit well. Which jeans would the shopper be more 

likely to buy? Chances are that the shopper will purchase the cheaper jeans. 

The more expensive jeans had to include the higher price of labor to make the jeans in the 

United States, while the cheaper jeans were less expensive because the producers could pay 


the laborers much less in China and still receive a profit. After the less expensive, Chinamade 

jeans are chosen over the more expensive jeans time after time, the company whose 

productions were based in the United States soon decide to move their company overseas in 

order to have cheaper labor, sell more jeans and make more of a profit. 

This process forces producers to equalize their labor by paying them the least amount 

possible. As page 165 of the annotations reads, “The active pursuit of the best production 

process causes them to end up with very similar labor processes...” The “best” production 

process means the best process for the producers, not the laborers. 

Also on page 165, it reads, “...the producers are forced to make important qualitative 

changes in the production process if they want to stay competitive in the market...” The 

goals which laborers pursue in this process are to stay competitive and to get ahead of the 

market. These goals often blind producers to what is best for their laborers, as well as to 

what is loyal to their country and the unemployed citizens there. 

Message [504] referenced by [2007SP:227]. Next Message by SueGirl is [610]. 

Question 254 is 177 in 1998WI, 196 in 2000fa, 221 in 2002fa, 229 in 2003fa, 259 in 

2004fa, 274 in 2007SP, 279 in 2007fa, 285 in 2008SP, 283 in 2008fa, 297 in 2009fa, 325 

in 2010fa, 304 in 2011fa, and 304 in Answer: 

Question 254 Isn’t there a blatant inconsistency in Marx’s text? At the beginning of paragraph 

167:1/o, the fixity of commodity prices is stressed, while towards the end of the same 

paragraph 167:1/o, Marx emphasizes that they fluctuate continually. 

[491] JJ: graded A Prices can be a beast! An important aspect of the capital market is the 

dynamic characteristic of price. If price were fixed or static, a producer could not “gain an 

advantage over” other producers who they compete with in the market (pg. 165). This static 

situation would be ideal for equality in society, but is of little interest to the producers. These 

producers who have been successful in taming nature think they can use the same principles 

in taming the market. However the market tends to be very unnatural, because it is a social 

creation. The extent to which the producers can tame the market is limited to the dynamic 

character of prices within a range or cage. Like a beast, a price is free to move about with 

a mind of its own. The fixity of which Marxs speaks of is not the price itself, but the range 

which it operates (like a cage). Outside of this range exchange between producers would not 

take place. 


[497] Pisciphiliac: graded A Blatant Inconsistenty? No, Marx does not contradict himself. 

In fact, he is making a very important point. When a commodity is first produced, the 

fixity of its exchange value is the amount of labor that is used. This determines the value. 

Marx defines a “certain customary fixity” that, in the beginning, equates x amount of one 

commodity to y amount of another commodity. 

Once this fixity has been socially accepted, members of a capitalist society will make 

attempts to “take advantage of the value proportions.” In other words, economic agents will 

always attempt to get the best price for their commodity. This attempt is motivated by profits. 

The activity of many economic agents is the cause of the exchange relationship to fluctuate 

continually.


Message [497] referenced by [2008fa:367]. Next Message by Pisciphiliac is [498]. 

Question 255 is 222 in 2002fa, 230 in 2003fa, 260 in 2004fa, 275 in 2007SP, and 280 in 

2007fa: 

Question 255 What is the law of value? What does all this talk about “escaping” or “outwitting” 

the law of value mean? 

[561] Legolas: The Law of Value is the theory that value comes from labor and value 

transforms every product. The fact that socially necessary labor time is the underlying principle 

allows producers to forget that value relations are social. Also, exchange proportions 

between the products, the labor time socially necessary to produce them asserts itself as a 

regulative law of nature. Outwitting means to rearrange how the things move that control 

them. The law of value is a natural created by the lack of awareness of the people subjected 

to it. 

Hans: This question was not in Installment 1 and it is not a designated exam question; therefore it will not be on 

the test. 

How does value transform every product? 

Your third sentence is not well constructed. 

Your definition of “outwitting” is unusual but interesting. “Outwitting” means here: using your cleverness to 

get results that are better than what the law of value would otherwise allow. It is not a rearrangement of the law of 

value; perhaps it might be considered arranging oneself with the law in a favorable way. 

What do you mean by: the law of value is a natural? 

You picked interesting pieces from the readings, but you did not combine these tidbits in a coherent narrative. 



2003fa, 262 in 2004fa, 277 in 2007SP, 282 in 2007fa, 285 in 2008fa, 299 in 2009fa, 327 

in 2010fa, and 306 in 2011fa: 

Question 257 Where else should one start science if not with facts? How did Marx himself 

come to his findings? 

[483] MK: According to Marx, empirical data is necessary in the development of conceptual 

thinking. (Marx supported Hegel’s view of knowledge as a process from the senses/or 

sense data to the conceptual). Marx argues that the logical growth of knowledge relies upon 

the foundation of a continual deliberation of the increasingly richer material of sensation; in 

the course of deliberation the mind abstracts richer and thus increasingly adequate concepts. 

(I.e.–Marx begins by introducing the commodity, and builds upon the commodity in order to 

introduce an entire theory. He uses the commodity to introduce concepts that may otherwise 

be difficult if not possible to observe– such as the social relations encompassed in a given 

commodity.) 

Marx seems to begin with a question– and seeks out an answer. Which is in accordance 

with the empirical and scientific principles of explanation. One must start with a question 

(not an answer) and appeal to the facts in order to answer the question. Thus, Marx relies on 

the observation of facts and purports to derive a theory. (This is of course in direct opposition 

to the philosophy of Hegel. Hegel began with a theory [the Absolute Spirit] and arranged 

facts accordingly. This approach lacks objectivity.) 


Marx relies on actual history of human societies (empirical data) in order to locate a 

pattern and thus make predictions. 

Hans: Marx himself studied not only the facts but also the work of other scientists. 

Yes he asked questions: often questions about the invisible forces behind the visible facts. 

Humans gain information about the world not only by observing but also by acting in the world. This second 

channel of information is often overlooked. 


[562] Legolas: Science does not necessarily have to start with facts, rather, “research 

starts when an explanation is needed.” Science is work, it is neither passive nor aggressive 

and can be “plainly revealing.” 

Hans: Research starting with facts and research starting when an explanation is needed are not alternatives that 

exclude each other. 

You did not answer the second half of the question. 


[568] Parmenio: graded A weight 50% Science and Marx. Science usually starts with 

a hypothesis, then you gather the facts to prove or disprove your hypothesis, good science is 

falsifiable. 

Marx seems to have his hypothesis, and then gathers his facts to prove his point, he 

doesn’t appear to be falsifiable. 

Hans: Instead of starting with a finished hypothesis Marx tries to infer, in a detective-like fashion, the hidden 

underlying motive forces from the evidence. 

Message [568] referenced by [585]. Next Message by Parmenio is [818]. 

[585] Hans: Is Marxism falsifiable? The prior discussion about this question was inconclusive. 

There seems to be a difference between Marx’s methodology and that of modern 

sciences, but its precise character is hard to pin down. Many specific aspects seem identical. 

Parmenio’s [568] brings in an important observation: modern sciences use falsifiability 

as a central criterion, and Marxism does not seem to be falsifiable. Here is an attempt to 

explain what is going on here. 

The central concern of modern sciences are the facts. Hypotheses are mere constructs 

which help us to sort and predict facts, and they are only good as long as they withstand 

falsification by the facts. 

Marxism and other forms of depth-realism view the world differently. Their central concern 

is not the facts but the forces which generate the facts. For instance it is an important 

scientific insight for them that society is not reducible to individuals but has its own driving 

forces independent of the will of the individuals. The concept of “value” is not a hypothesis 

but it is the name for an invisible yet real driving force, which has its own quantity and 

quality. Just as a virus can infect a human organism and re-purpose it for its own reproduction, 

so has this value re-purposed the social production process in capitalism for its own 

augmentation. Marx calls value an “automatic subject.” 

Also society is divided into classes. Again, on the one hand this is invisible; members of 

the working class do not have to wear a star on their lapel. But on the other hand their life 

chances and their life is very different; classes have real and measurable effects. 

Disagreements exist in Marxism about the effectivity of these driving forces. Classical 

Marxism says that the working class is the agent which will overcome capitalism; some


modern Marxists wonder whether the working class has been bought off and whether perhaps 

a broader popular coalition will arise in the face of the ever more blatant and dangerous 

irrationalities of the system. 

Marxism focuses more on identifying the forces at work and learning their inner tendencies 

than on prediction. For modern sciences, by contast, explanation and prediction are the 

same thing; if a prediction does not come true this falsifies the science. Marxism has known 

the concept of indeterminacy for a long time: many things cannot be known at the present 

time because the world itself has not yet made up its mind in which direction it will go. 

Modern mainstream sciences know about indeterminacy in quantum mechanics and chaos 

theory. But they consider it as curious exceptions and not as something to be expected in an 

evolving universe capable of true innovation. 


[587] Bosox: Science is made up of theory and assumptions. Evolution, gravity. the 

“theory of relativity” are all ideas that have been studied extensively for many years and are 

believed by some but are still unproven theories. Biologists will declare this to be true, even 

with all the testing science is all theory. One reason for this is because of technology and 

the advancements in science itself, science disproves itself so that facts actually never come 

to pass. So the only place that scientists can start would be with the theory itself or on the 

“facts” that other assumptive scientists have conjured up. 

Marx is exactly the same. As an economic scientist he was unhappy with the prevailing 

beliefs in his day and decided to develop his own ideas. He began to see problems in other 

ideas and began to theorize. Through his hypotheses he developed his own way of thinking 

about the economy. When he was finished others agreed with his ideas and believed that 

they were true or factual. 

The fact is that we still study Marx to this day because there are many that believe that 

his ideas are true. Like all scientists Marx developed his ideas through study and research, 

beginning with theory. 

Hans: People have landed on the moon and done many other amazing feats due to science. This seems to refute 

your contention that nobody really knows what is going on. 

I also do not see the connection between your answer and the prior discussion of this topic. Exam answers 

should be a summary of the class discussion. 


Question 260 is 157 in 1995WI, 134 in 1995ut, 167 in 1996sp, 227 in 2002fa, 235 in 

2003fa, 280 in 2007SP, 285 in 2007fa, 290 in 2008SP, 302 in 2009fa, 330 in 2010fa, and 

309 in 2011fa: 

Question 260 Why does Marx call Ricardo’s exchange between primitive fisherman and 

primitive hunter a “Robinson Crusoe story”? 

[469] Zone: graded B+ Marx refers to Ricardo’s exchange between a primitive fisherman 

and a primitive hunter as a “Robinson Crusoe story” because Marx believes that this sort of 

exchange is fictional and not corresponding to a commodity producing society. Richardo is 

seen as depicting a primitive society based on barter and not seeing exchange as it works in 

society. Richardo looks at the general form of circulation as a commodity that is exchanged 

for another commodity with money involved to facilitate the process. It can be seen that 


there is a “fair” exchange in relation to both parties by doing this. Marx believes that the 

general form of circulation in a commodity producing society is people buy in order to sell. 

There is money that buys a commodity and then the commodity is sold again for a profit. 

This means that since someone is gaining from the exchange, someone else must be losing 

out in the end. 

Hans: Interesting try. But the right answer is [489]. 

Message [469] referenced by [489]. Next Message by Zone is [470]. 

[489] Jingle: graded A I don’t agree with Zone’s answer [469]. Zone put that there is 

an exchange between the fisherman and the hunter, and that someone will lose out in the 

end from the exchange. I don’t think that there really was an exchange between the hunter 

and the fisherman, and I don’t feel that anyone is losing out in the end. Marx looks at 

exchange from a societal point of view. Marx states that each society to exchange must be 

atomized on individualism. According to Marx this was a primitive society and unlikely 

to be atomized. The primitive fisherman and the primitive hunter didn’t worry about the 

labor content. I think that they thought everything was common property, they didn’t claim 

the commodity as their own property, they shared all of their commodities. I think that the 

reason Marx calls Ricardo’s exchange a “Robinson Crusoe Story” is that Ricardo thought 

that the primitive fisherman and the primitive hunter are isolated individuals, who were 

exchanging commodities instead of sharing commodities. The concept of the individual is a 

new development of modern times. 

Final Grading Note by Hans: This is not only the best answer to 260, it is also one of your best submissions 

overall. It combines clarity with depth. It is perhaps not as easily accessible as you want it to be, according to your 

[1854], since the other participants answering the question do not seem to have absorbed it. 

Message [489] referenced by [469], [502], and [690]. Next Message by Jingle is [551]. 

[502] MarxSchmarx: Robinson Crusoe. Robinson Crusoe was stranded on an island 

with no contact to the outside world. The only possessions that he saved from his shipwreck 

were a pen, a ledger, ink and a stopwatch. He then proceeded to log the different possessions 

that he accumulated, with a description of how they were made, and how long it took him 

to make them. In essence, he was deriving a value of these object by the time that it took to 

make/do them. 

This is what the primitive fisherman and the primitive hunter have in common, which 

is why Marx refers to the scenario of Ricardo as a Robinson Crusoe story. They have no 

other way to determine value. The determinate factor of value in this scenario would be to 

compare how long it took the other to catch/hunt the good that they wish to trade. If one fish 

is worth one pound of meat, the fisherman is revealing that he is willing to trade the labor 

that it took to catch one fish, and trade that for the labor it took to hunt one pound of meat. 

Hans: Did you read [489]? This was the right answer to the question. 


[690] Claire: To expand my answer from the test on question 260, I stated that an individual 

had a choice to hunt fish or hunt meat. This takes the approach of how Ricardo thought 

that the primitive hunter and the primitive fisherman were self-serving individuals. Jingle 

[489] states that Ricardo thought that the hunter and fisherman were exchanging commodities 

instead of sharing commodities like in the Robinson Crusoe story (Installment 1, p73). 

So everything was common property.


In my answer to the test question I also said that your exchanging commodities according 

to your own needs goes along right with Marx’s statement that each society to exchange 

must be atomized on individualism. But since everything was common property it steers 

away from this idea and more to the primitive society as being not atomized. 

Next Message by Claire is [757]. 

[766] Thugtorious: graded A Marx calls Ricardo’s analysis the “Robinson Crusoe” story 

to distinguish it from capitalistic exchange. In Ricardo’s analysis, a fisherman and a hunter 

engage in trade, and through absolute advantage, the two are better off via exchange than 

they would be if they did not exchange. The “Robinson Cursoe” title given by Marx implies 

that he sees Ricardo as saying that the hunter and fisherman are isolated individuals that 

come together, engage in trade, and then go back to isolation. Through Marx’s analysis, 

we see that this is not the case. He views this situation as a primitive community where 

the spoils of each person’s day are shared in a communal nature and not privately owned. 

The two do not engage in trade, but share for the betterment of the community. The idea 

of the individual, atomization of these exchanges, and private property are a relatively new 

phenomenon of society. 

Hans: Your in-class answer was a little different but also very interesting. You wrote: 

Marx looks at Ricardo’s “fisherman and hunter” scenario as a “Robinson Cursoe story” mainly 

because of ownership. Ricardo argued that the two engaged in trade somewhat as a matter of 

necessity. However, Marx said that the explanation is misguided since neither the fisherman 

nor the hunter owned the products of their exploits. They engaged in production (hunting and 

fishing) as a means of survival and traded their products much in the same way. They truly 

reaped what they sowed. 


[796] Ace: graded A Marx realized that the primitive hunter and fisherman did not understand 

the concept of the exchange value. Society has evolved over time from a society 

that does not need trade to a more greedy society where more people are just looking out 

for themselves. The hunter and the fisherman did not realize that what they were doing was 

so different mostly in the labor involved. They thought that they could come together and 

share the fish and animal and not have any more worries. Ricardo on the other hand didn’t 

understand this principle of our evolving society because he thought that the hunter and fisherman 

did understand the difference in the labor and needed to exchange the goods with one 

another. Ricardo thought it was more about the individual than it really was. This is why it 

is called a Robinson Crusoe story. 


[863] Xerho: graded B Marx calls Richardo’s exchange between primitive fisherman and 

primitive hunter a “Robinson Crusoe” story because it is as if one person were exchanging 

with himself as these primitive hunters and fishermen were merely exchanging commodities 

as sustenance with little social inputs and heavy needs-based reason for exchange. 

Hans: If the society is small this does not mean there is little social input. 


[911] Pete: graded B Marx calls Robinson Crusoe a “story” because Marx looks through 

the eyes of a social society. Because the fisherman and Crusoe didn’t have the luxury of 

thinking in the terms of labor but only in terms of exchange. Everything was made and 

swapped as needed. Richardo thought that because the fisherman and Crusoe were the only 

individuals on the island they were exchanging instead of sharing. 



Question 263 is 137 in 1995ut, 185 in 1997sp, 186 in 1998WI, 230 in 2002fa, and 238 in 

2003fa: 

Question 263 Which social forms do the three determinations of value take in Marx’s example 

of medieval society? 

[492] Sparrow: The determinations of value are the equality of human labor, the social 

significance of labor-time and the interactions between the producers. According to Marx 

these determinations of value take the form of coercion and exploitation. 

Hans: In the Middle Ages, social relations did not go through things but there was direct coercion. The products 

of labor therefore did not have a social form other than their natural form. 



1997ut, 235 in 2002fa, 244 in 2003fa, 274 in 2004fa, 289 in 2007SP, 299 in 2008SP, 297 

in 2008fa, 311 in 2009fa, 339 in 2010fa, 318 in 2011fa, and 332 in 2012fa: 

Question 269 Is there a connection between Christianity and the commodity relation? 

[473] Daleman: graded B+ weight 50% A relationship between Christianity and the 

commodity is valid only with modern forms of religion. Just as a relationship between 

useful labor and production exists requiring it to rise above its character, so does there exist 

a relationship between the body and soul. Requiring us to purify ourselves. 

Message [473] referenced by [474] and [476]. Next Message by Daleman is [722]. 

[474] TimJim: The Commodity and Christianity. In response to Daleman [473], I 

believe the connection between Christianity and the commodity goes much deeper. I believe 

that the more a person analyzes the connection there can be two conclusions that can come. 

The first point is the connection between the human labor that is put into the commodity, 

and the belief that human labor, works, that is put into someone’s life as they enter the next 

life and become pure souls. Depending on the interpretation of the bible the person / church 

takes, depends on how much this human labor depends on their salvation. Rev. 20:12 states, 

“...and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according 

to their works.” Many Christian sects believe that after this life, the rest of eternity is judged 

upon the good works that they perform in this life. They were given a body to give “human 

labor” to give value to their soul. Just like the commodity gains value from the amount of 

labor that is input, Christianity believes the soul gains value with the amount of good works 

that is input. 

This connection can be made in most religions and not just Christianity, that a person will 

be judged by their good works. The second conclusion is quite the contrary of the first, and 

shows that there is no real relation between Christianity and the commodity. The reason that 

Christianity is different from all other religions is the belief in Christ and the fact that after 

all the person can do, it is only by the grace of Christ that they are saved. In Capital terms, 

their commodity, or life, gains value from something that they weren’t able to do. This is 

something that Marx does not believe. Rom 3:24 “Being justified freely by his grace through 

the redemption that is in Christ Jesus.”


Depending on the thought and interpretation of Christianity there can, and there cannot, 

be made a connection between the commodity and Christianity. 

Message [474] referenced by [2008SP:173] and [2012fa:281]. Next Message by TimJim is [778]. 

[475] MrPink: content A form 98% I agree with Daleman in that there is a connection 

with modern religion. I have read some very interesting responses in the archives, starting 

with [2003fa:191]. I believe that the original forms of religion did not intend to use or be 

used by the forms of the economy. However, with the development of the written Bible 

Catholicism began making wealth a measure of closeness to God; i.e. money equaled entry 

into heaven. Specifically, since the Pope and priests were closest to God, one would make 

larger tithings to become closer to those holy men. This was disrupted by Martin Luther 

on soul exchange which was a commodity for the Catholic church. However over time the 

Protestant work ethic was developed and had close ties to modern capitalism. This illustrates 

the opportunistic nature of man does not discriminate. 

Hans: Instead of opportunism you could also call it irreverence and the desire to instrumentalize everything for 

their benefit. 

Message [475] referenced by [922], [1815], and [2009fa:212]. Next Message by MrPink is [478]. 

[476] Hans: Religion and Sexuality. Daleman’s answer [473] does not bring out clearly 

enough how critical Marx is both of religion and of the commodity relation. Perhaps my 

own formulation in the Annotation was not clear enough, therefore here is another try: 

Someone may produce something that is socially very useful, something others need, 

but before it can be put to use by others, it has to go through the ritual of abstraction and 

purification, called the market, in which it does not count as the useful labor which it is, 

but where it is measured as abstract labor against all other expenditures of abstract labor in 

society. In Marx’s eyes, this is not a good thing. The social mechanism which coordinates 

the labors is too primitive. This poses difficult and irrelevant constraints on the labor itself. 

Many obvious and useful things which people could be doing for each other are prohibited 

by the market. 

In the same way, Christianity does not measure virtue by the fullness of people’s humanity, 

but by how well they have abstracted from, i.e., suppressed, their sexuality. In the 

Marxist view, sexuality is not evil, but an integral and loveable part of all of us. Sexuality is 

a very progressive force, since it motivates us to overcome the rifts between the individuals. 

A Marxist is not surprised that those in power are scared of it and try to suppress it. 

For someone who has grown up in a society in which the oppression of sexuality is one 

of the pillars that keeps an unjust system in place, it is difficult to see how high a price we 

are paying for this. But you do not have to go any farther than to the free discussion list 

associated with this class to find evidence. Recent discussion threads show that there is a 

general suspicion and uncertainty whether homosexuals might be doing something wrong. 

The only rational explanation for this is that people are suspicious of their own sexuality, 

whatever kind it is. As long as you protect yourself against sexually transmitted disease and 

unwanted pregnancies, having more fun in this area is good for you, good for your partner, 

and good for society in general. 

Message [476] referenced by [479], [496], [830], [839], [894], [899], [1939], [2008SP:187], and [2011fa:202]. 



[477] COMMI: Response to Hans. I have to disagree with what Hans says about sexuality. 

Why is self-control bad for society? How is screwing everyone a good thing? I guess 

NAMBLA (North American Man Boy Love Association) is good for society? Fifty years 

ago homosexuals were thought to be sexual deviants. Now people say they are expressing 

their sexuality. Today we call men who have sex with young boys sexual deviants. How 

long until this is socially acceptable? Where do we draw the line? So as long as a 40 year 

old man uses a condom when he has sex with a 5 year old boy it is “good” for the 40 year 

old, “good” for the 5 year old boy and “good” for society. 

Hans: Eloquent formulation of a point of view which is probably shared by many. 

Message [477] referenced by [478] and [839]. Next Message by COMMI is [875]. 

[478] MrPink: (graded A) Hi COMMI, I agree that self control is important. However, I 

interpret Hans’s point to be about self-control being self administered. The rules shouldn’t 

be made by religion. (I think that would lead to anarchy) 

I don’t see that as the same thing as approving of non-consensual sex (or rape). 

Hans: Very good response. It was prompt (less than an hour after COMMIE’s [477]), and instead of escalating 

things further you are calming the waters. 


[479] Robgodfell: NAMBLA, Pederasts, Deviants and a rant (or two). COMMI my 

man/lady, that was slightly carried away. 

Where in, as Hans put it in [476], that [sex] which “motivates us to overcome the rifts 

between” individuals as consenting adults (which anybody in this class would be considered, 

regardless if actually up to the task) do we arrive at pederasts and deviants? 

THE REST OF THIS EMAIL IS A RANT. READ ON AT YOUR OWN RISK. 

Now this might be out of some classmates current league because of religion, particular 

morality, whatever (no judgment passed), but have we ever experienced the ability of sexual 

encounter with our relations to heal animosity? 

Why is there such a high rate of divorce in a state which considers marriage to be a holy 

communion as the reflection of love of god as love for thy holy partner? 

Sex.Sex.Sex.Sex.Sex. That’s quintuple X. 

And clearly not enough of it. . . 

So we have the equivalent of temporary marriages so that two sexually starved individuals 

can finally understand. . . all of you in violent head shaking and screaming denial, think 

to all of your returned missionary friends (the ones who up till that point hadn’t had sex) 

how quickly they got hitched and in the lead-up they are blinded by this desire which runs 

them into marriage with a partner unsuitable for them. . . and how in his good name is that 

considered holy? 

But two partners that would love each other (who already know if sex is good or not) 

could be considered a sin? We should be so blessed to be able to love. 

Wouldn’t it be better than to make a mockery out of marriage as means to “get some,” 

to instead free our realization the natural arena of man is also his loin. . . and denial of those 

sexual energies causes more grief and distress in our puritanical nation.


You can turn on the T.V. and see a cop burn a criminals face on a stove, or beat a man 

to death with the yellow pages. . . I’ve seen more death and destruction on my set (which I 

no longer watch) than I ever saw in the army. I’ve learned more about guns and killing, and 

ways to rig grenades to the undercarriage of a UN convoy SUV from CNN than I ever did in 

6 months of combat training. 

But the one “weapon” that is deemed to inappropriate for our primetime viewers and their 

sensitive children is the one that comes prepackaged between their legs! 

There are people who have to go to sexual training classes because they haven’t a clue as 

to what they’re supposed to do with the thing, or how they’re to love their partners. If you 

don’t believe me search the net, there are “instructional courses” available for those who are 

“unsure” of themselves. (I am a regular attendee :D ) But these same people who couldn’t 

make love to their wives could terrorize a city of millions with only the information given to 

them on the daily news. 

How many of us as pre-schoolers or kindergartners noticed that something was different 

with that other person, they weren’t like us! They didn’t have the same equipment. So we 

checked. . . that exploratory game with the other sex? None of us need the answer, because 

most will be honest at least with ourselves. 

Was it wrong? 

Not until we were conditioned alongside with behavioral consumerism and societal fears 

did we “realize” that how we naturally were, was wrong. . . 

We are subjugated. 

We are slaves. 

And worst, we internalize the lessons that are reiterated to us every day, so well in fact, 

that we become our own slave masters. 

We tighten the noose daily with every denial of our basic human wants. We are alienated 

from ourselves. 

Why are sexual crimes so rampant in this country? Because we are told forever to deny 

who we are, what we are and what we want and when that becomes a pressure cooker that 

no potato should handle the weaker among us break and hurt and intrude upon others. 

Because we thought we could decide that that gift that was given to us by God to understand 

ourselves in the loving embrace of our lovers is a sin. 

Some of us will join the suicides in Dante’s infernos forever chained to some odd sexual 

machinations because we thought we could deny a gift as some of us deny life. . . we thought 

we could tell God we knew better. . . 


[480] Hans: Regarding COMMIE’s response. To prevent any misunderstandings, I 

am strongly opposed to rape or sexual abuse of children. In my view, the best strategy 

to protect ourselves against predatory and abusive personal relations is the removal of the 

overall discriminatory and exploitative social structures. People mimick in the small what 

they witness in the large. 



[486] Tink: graded A Response to Hans and others. In response in Hans, Commi and 

Mr. Pink’s thoughts on Religion and Sexuality and how Marx would think of it, I have to 

disagree with Hans on a certain point but think Commi took his comments far out of context. 

Depending on how they are taught, religious confines found in Christianity can easily discourage 

the exercise of self-control which Commi spoke of in his response to Hans. People 

will follow the laws out of fear (instead of self-control), which Hans spoke of, not knowing 

why the practice may or may not be useful in their progression. Hans absolutely did not 

say that abuse or harming others was O.K., he merely pointed out that the social structure 

of a Christian society is afraid of and frowns upon various sexual activities in general, and 

discourages sexual exploration. Perhaps if such fears of retribution from society could be 

set aside, then people would not be inclined to explore and satisfy their sexual desires in 

such horrible ways as rape and abuse. Our society does not even encourage open dialogue 

on issues such as homosexuality, let alone a “free” and open culture where the might experiment. 

Countrary to Commi’s interpretation, exploration and dialogue about sex does not 

give anyone permission to violate another person. I believe such an openess would help curb 

such activities from ever occuring. If a person already feels that their thoughts and emotions 

are “evil” by society’s standards, what motivation do they have to keep their actions and 

behaviors appropriate either? 

Hans indicated that Christianity measures virtue from how well people have abstained 

from or suppressed their sexuality. This is a result of the “purification” process it was put 

through in society, which rather than purify, distorted the nature of the law. Abstinence is 

about self-control, and those who excercise it out of fear are misled. The commodity relation 

is similarly distorted, a thing is not measured or valued for what it is, but rather what society 

has turned it in to by a crude process where its useful nature is eliminated in such a primitive 

process. 

Hans: Very good arguments. By bringing in the concept of exploration, you are making my position more acceptable. 


[496] Bubba: graded A Christianity and the commodity relation. I’ll respond to several 

of the contributions to this thread. I believe Marx’s main theme here is that the commodity 

relation and the version of Christian doctrine that he was attacking both get in the way of 

meaningful human relationships. 

Hans states [476] that “Many obvious and useful things which people could be doing for 

each other are prohibited by the market.” The market dehumanizes people’s service to each 

other. Marx illustrates this with one extreme in Appendix C (p. 570-571 of the Annotations) 

where he describes how families of factory workers were reduced to relations of exchange 

where the family relationship was reduced to that of tenants (children) and landlords (parents). 

TriPod stated back in [250] on the topic of happiness being the only true wealth that his 

family is his only true wealth (Hans, in a footnote to that message, stated that “Marx would 

agree with you, I think, that a supportive network of social relations is an important part of a 

society’s wealth.”). Like TriPod, my family relationships are most precious to me. I also find


immense satisfaction in friendship and in serving my friends, without it being a relationship 

of exchange, having to expect something in return. 

Some Christian churches have historically gotten in the way of meaningful human relationships. 

Since Hans [476] gave his take on sexuality, I’ll mention that I vehemently 

disagree with the doctrine that complete celibacy is the most pure and meaningful worship, 

because it necessarily precludes having a family. However, I also disagree with sexual 

promiscuity, because it destroys the integrity of the family. Some churches have legitimized 

exploitation, often to preserve the economic status quo (serfdom in Feudalism as well as 

slavery in the South in early US history). 

Unquestioningly accepting any church’s teachings that lead away from family and friendship 

is like bourgeois economics, which Hans points out on 168 and 169 of the Annotations 

that they just don’t realize that if they could step back and “ask the more fundamental critical 

questions [instead of looking for] an affirmation of what they were doing,” they could solve 

the riddle. 

Conclusion: question everything, religion as well as capitalism. 

Message [496] referenced by [922] and [1939]. Next Message by Bubba is [574]. 

[546] Thelonius: Christian Kapital. I would argue along with the assertion that christianity 

from its conception (that is disregarding Jesus of Naz. and his associates) follows a 

very Capitalistic structure in terms of how it distributes blessings, forgiveness and spirituality 

to those who would follow. Just as in the capitalist format, the christian process is that 

of hierarchies, and only the heights of the church are given the distributive power to “forgive” 

an individual of their soul damning sins. The leadership of the church has a relative 

“possession” over the powers of God and will only distribute them to converts under certain 

conditions. It could be said that the christian churches treat forgiveness just as if it were a 

commodity, the convert has to pay (in cash) a tribute to the church, attend church meetings 

in order to facilitate that transaction and often work for the church in a certain capacity to 

gain the favor of its divine employer. The Catholic church was effective in isolating converts 

by insisting on conducting mass in latin while disregarding the number of parishioners who 

actually understood what was being said. If god was supposed to only communicate in latin 

and an individual was unfamiliar with the language, it would require the parishioner to see 

a priest who did know the language, in order to speak with god. In what christian organization 

can a christian follower reach spiritual attainment without ever entering a church? The 

christian church seems to have a capitalistic monopoly on forgiveness. 


[703] MK: Christianity relates to the commodity relation in the following way– 

A person may produce a commodity that has a great social use– however, that particular 

product must go through the process of being accepted (by a abstraction and purification) 

by the ‘market’, in which it does not yet count as useful labor (when in fact it is) but is still 

measured as abstract labor against other products or expenditures of abstract labor. Much in 

the way that Christianity some will argue does not measure one’s virtue by his person, by 

his very human nature, his humanness– but rather by his abstration from his humanness. His 

ability to abstract from the desires that make him human, and put aside these desires. (The 


example I am most familiar with is sexuality– it is said that sexuality is a great motivationg 

force and should not necessarily be overcome, but rather used to a great benefit.) 


[722] Daleman: graded A Yes a relationship between Christianity and the commodity 

relation exists. Almost anyone can produce something that is socially useful. However 

before you can use it the thing must go through abstract purification which is the market. 

Christianity teaches striving to purify your body and soul. Marx is particularly critical 

of this relationship stating we could be doing many useful things for/to each other if not 

prohibited by the market or religion. 


[784] Mjk: Marx state [173-174 of the annotation] that “for a society of commodity 

producers, whose general social relation of production consists in the fact that they treat 

their products as commodities, hence as value, and in this objectified from bring their private 

labors into relation with each other as homogeneous human labor; Christianity with its 

religious cult of the abstract human, especially in its development.” In this case, I believe 

that the value relation abstract from the concrete usefulness of labor and from the individual 

circumstances of production, so Christianity also makes an abstract such as from some of 

the more bodily aspects of humans. Just as the labor process must arise above its local and 

traditional character to withstand the test of the market, so humans must strip off their bodily 

encumbrances to becomes pure souls. This would be the correspondence between religion 

and commodity relations only holds for modern religion in modern time. 

Hans: Your resubmission is again a cut-and-paste job from the Annotations. Your in-class answer says: 

There is a connection between Christianity and the commodity relation; commodity relation 

– is a socially relation based on society. Christianity relation is also something that a society 

works it on to bring up good relationship among christians in the society. Commodity relation 

is the value of the society whereby commodity ability of exchanging one another. 

First Message by Mjk is [156]. 

[790] Geo: graded A– There is a connection that Marx tries to make between Christianity 

and commodity relation. This connection is that both a commodity producing society and 

Christianity treat their ‘products’ as items with value. He also connects them with labor 

or the value behind labor in its abstract form. Christianity and capitalism treat its subjects 

based upon their value and value is derived from some form of abstract labor then ‘purified’ 

to a higher form, ie. righteous or a commodity of the general form. 


[797] Prairierose: Marx’s theory suggests a connection between Christianity and the commodity 

relation. Both Christianity and the commodity relation rely on an extreme amount of 

idealism. In Marx’s time he dealt with a large amount of idealism (Installment 1, Professor 

Ehrbar). Christianity focuses on this same type of idealism. The main idea of Christianity 

is your good works on earth will allow you to receive your great reward which is heaven. 

However, you must reject your sexuality in order to receive this great reward. In capitalism 

idealism is expressed through the commodity. The commodity is required to represent value 

(the abstract labor of the producer). Marx views the market as too primitive. People could 

be doing useful things for each other; however, they are unable because of the market. There


is a definite connection between Christianity and the commodity relation and this connection 

is evident in the idealistic views both share. Also embedded in the idealistic view of 

Christianity and the commodity relation is the requirement of denying oneself. 


[799] Dandy: Christianity and commodities. Karl Marx says that religion is a social 

phenomenon, which requires its own description. He discussed the relationship between 

productive powers, relations of production and religion. He clarifies that his statements 

apply to modern religion in modern times. He says that just as there is value to concrete 

labor and individual production, Christianity gives value to the more “bodily” aspect of 

humans. He also states that just as a labor process rises above its traditional character to 

withstand the market, humans must purify their souls and rise above their bodily embraces. 

Hans: Christianity does not like the “more ‘bodily’ aspect of humans.” 


[806] Astclair: The question being posed here, ask whether there is a connection between 

Christianity and the commodity relation. The key word here is connection. While Marx 

argues that there are similarities between the two, it is not apparent that there is a connection. 

According to Hans, Marx claims that “religion reflects the quality and transparency 

of social relations,” but the examples given are given metaphorically, and no interdependency 

is shown to exist between the two, which I believe is necessary in order to create a 

“connection.” 

Marx’s arguments of Christianity and the commodity relation seem useless in serving his 

explanation of commodities. If Marx wants to try and explain Christianity in some way, he 

should do so separately, outside of the context of the commodity relation. His best parallel, 

which is still unrelated to explaining commodities, speaks of how humans must strip off their 

bodily encumbrances to become pure souls, which he says is similar to the labor process 

rising above its local and traditional character to withstand the test of the market. That is 

nice Mr. Marx, great analogy, but there is still no evidence that there is a connection between 

Christianity and the commodity relation, so what is the point of these analogies? Are you 

simply trying to relate to Christians in a way they might understand, in order to bring validity 

to your argument? 

Religion and Commodities satisfy different wants and needs of the individual. The only 

way that they are connected, is that they can co-exist. 

Hans: Good point. I will reformulate the question. 


[813] SueGirl: graded A Commodity relation and Christianity. In-class answer (typed 

in by Hans): 

There is a big connection between Christianity and the commodity relation. Throughout 

the history of Christianity, it has been preached that the poor will bring true happiness. In 

other words, the fewer commodities one has, the more peaceful and happier one’s life will 

be. Some believe that this has set us up for capitalism. With the belief that to work hard, but 

not to have wealth or own the means of production, will bring happiness, it allows workers 

to be exploited and for the owners of the means of production to cash in on all of the hard 

work of the poor workers. 


Karl Marx said “religion is the opium of the people.” By this, I believe he meant that 

religion makes us feel justified in being poor and working hard. It makes us feel better about 

being exploited in a capitalist society and, because of the “turn the other cheek” doctrines of 

Christianity, it stops the poor workers or “proletariat” from rising up in rebellion against the 

bourgeoisie (even though Marx believed that eventually this uprising would take place). 

The connection between Christianity and the commodity would be a tool for the bourgeoisie 

to control the proletariat and discourage the working class from desiring commodities. 

Resubmission: 

Christianity and the commodity relation share a connection in that they each involve an 

abstraction dictating that they must change themselves into something or someone different 

than who or what they are. Christianity’s focus is on putting off the “natural man” and 

denying the self of all ungodliness (whether it be sexual desires, coveting riches, etc.) in 

order to become someone better, more pure or whole. 

Producers of the commodity also deny humanity in that they look at their laborers as 

commodities, not human beings and they seek to find the use value and production methods 

for their commodities which will be amply rewarded in the market. Producers weigh this 

gain (of market success) over the importance of careful consideration regarding the best 

production methods for their workers. This causes both Christians and commodity producers 

to deny individual involvement of human beings, to strip them of their humanity and to turn 

them into something or someone else. 

Hans: I took the trouble to type in your in-class exam because it is an excellent Marxist polemic against religion. 

Message [813] referenced by [1939]. Next Message by SueGirl is [815]. 

[819] Parmenio: graded A One of the beliefs that Christianity espouses is that man is 

fallen, that no matter what man does he cannot get back to “Heaven” without some form 

of intermediary, this intermediary being Jesus Christ. Therefore man’s relation to things 

in the world would be influenced if he believed man to be unalterably corrupt especially 

with regards to the commodity relationship. Most Christianity tells man to suppress his/her 

human nature and place trust in God (or as the Christian would say they exercise “selfcontrol”). 

On page 163 of the annotations Hans says asks how someone can “understand that value 

comes from labor still have a fetishistic view of social relations under capitalism”? He 

answered this question in the preceding paragraph when he says that people view the relationship 

to the commodity (the Fetishistic view that is) as “unalterable facts which one 

cannot change”, as opposed to their worldview is “brought about by a very special form of 

organizing production”, or that it doesn’t have to be so. 

So modern capitalism (and its relationship to the commodity) sees the commodity as 

something that is and cannot be changed because mankind cannot be changed. Trying to 

change society would do more harm than good because mankind is not perfect and cannot 

be, so trying to perfect mankind in this world would be similar to building a modern day 

Tower of Babel.


Marx believes that mankind isn’t necessarily unredeemable, that it can change its ways 

and its outlook in this world, and that perhaps the other world that Christians believe in is 

only a tool to get them to focus on the ethereal as opposed to the here and now; thus people 

allow themselves to be exploited “now” because they believe in a “later”. 

In the submissions to this question there arose a discussion about the forms of sexual 

openness with Marxism believing that one’s sexuality should be explored, and modern Christianity 

espousing that one should restrain one’s sexual urges. This relates to my above point 

because the Christian concept of self is “fallen” and that if one’s nature is fallen, then one 

shouldn’t necessarily do whatever one wants. 

Marxism believes that man isn’t fallen and should embrace sexuality because by suppressing 

one’s sexuality the person becomes the proverbial “boiling kettle”, and only ends 

up creating worse problems for society. 

However if one supplants “sexuality” with “violence” what does each teach us? If violence 

is not restrained then Marxism tells us to be violent, and suppressing violence would 

only lead to other societal problems, however many Marxists appear to be pacifists. 

On the other hand Christianity would tell us to suppress our violent tendencies, because 

man’s desires are “fallen”, however there is ample history of Christians advocating violence. 


[830] TimJim: This question can be viewed a couple of different ways and I will attempt 

to give my interpretation as I see best fits the question. 

I believe that there may and may not be a connection between the commodity and Christianity 

depending on a person’s beliefs and interpretation of the Bible. 

Many interpretations of the bible, are that a person is judged by their works (which can 

be viewed as human labor) to get their eternal reward (value). The more a person works in 

this life, the better their reward will be in the next life. This can be viewed in Marx’s terms 

as the more abstract labor that is input into a commodity, the more exchange value that it 

has. On the contrary, many Christians believe that by grace they are saved through Christ. 

This goes against the connection between commodity and Christianity because a commodity 

gains exchange value although there is no abstract labor. 

However a different way of looking at this connection is given by Hans [476], which 

states that Christianity is much like the market. There are “many obvious and useful things 

which people could be doing for each other (that) are prohibited by the market.” There is then 

the analogy of the Christian view of sex that is frowned upon when it possibly is actually 

good for society. The market and Christianity introduce certain barriers that people would 

otherwise do that could be good for society. It does not allow people to fully act as they 

would without those restraints. 


[832] Aaron: The commodity is produced for exchange for other commodities that are 

needed to subsist. And the producer produces his/her commodity under faith in the social 

market that when it is taken to market there will be a demand for the produced supply. A 

demand great enough to exchange for all other various commodities that he/she needs to 

support new production (capital) and to subsist on. Likewise people in Christianity act or 


produce behaviors in faith that in doing so in Christ-Like manner they will be rewarded or 

saved at a certain level (exchange-value) later. So based on their labor or behavior they 

will earn spiritual rewards (social values.) Their behavior-sexuality (labor) is qualified by 

a set of norms or social relationships and is judged automatically. This also happens to the 

commodity automatically through the process of abstraction which society calls the market. 

Perhaps in this context we could call it church, or the bible? 


[839] Rudy: graded A There is a connection between Christianity and the commodity 

relation as outlined by Marx. Though the analogy is difficult to extract from the text, Hans 

clarified in the discussion [476] that a commodity must go through a rite of purification 

called the market. In the market, the commodity is not evaluated by its own useful labor, 

but is measured against all other acceptable labors in a society to determine its value. This 

process prohibits the commodity from benefiting society as it possibly could have. 

In the same way, a person must go through a rite of cleansing to be accepted in a Christian 

society. This issue led to lively debate in our class discussion. If the society shuns sexual 

expression, a person’s value is measured by the way he or she has conforms to such ideals. 

Arguments in our discussion pointed out that the prohibitive constraints of society can inhibit 

that society from receiving the benefits of such expression. One argument to the contrary 

asks, “Why is self-control bad for society?” [477] I would answer, “Nothing.” On the surface, 

freedom of sexual expression in society promotes an “Anything goes” type of attitude. In 

reality, self control and not external control is more valuable to society. In other words, it is 

better if each person controls him- or herself, than if society controls all. Then each person 

is valued for their own worth and not the abstract worth society places on them. In the same 

way, a commodity’s value can be measured for its own value, and not the worth a market 

structure dictates to it. 


[840] Keltose: graded A The social phenomenon of religion and the relationship to commodities 

really remains relevant with modern forms of religion. Marx claims that religion is 

a social phenomenon, which has a unique comparison between productive powers and relations 

of productions. “...Christianity with its religious cult of the abstract human, especially 

in its bourgeois development, ... is the most fitting form of religion” (Marx, 172:1/o). 

Hans clarifies the abstract of value relations and usefulness of labor, “... Christianity also 

makes an abstraction: namely, from some of the more ‘bodily’” aspects of humans. Just 

as the labor process must rise above its local and traditional character to withstand the test 

of the market, so humans must strip off their bodily encumbrances to become pure souls 

(Remarks in the Annotations to the above Marx quote). 

A relationship between Christianity and the commodity is a relationship between useful 

labor and production, requiring it to rise above its character. In this example, I think that 

Commodities and Humans are both products, they are just in different markets with the 

same objective–to rise above market inflictions. 


[844] Gdubmoe: graded B There is a connection between Christianity and the commodity 

relation in terms roles by individuals and simplicity of early history. Long ago society was


very simple in terms of production and trade. They did not have any technology for production 

and produced commodities solely on labor. Christianity wants followers to lead simple 

lives and dedicate their lives to a higher level of authority. In production at these times in 

history, the individuals would work for the producers who reaped the majority of the benefits 

from the commodities produced by the individual. The individual in Christianity and the 

individual in the production process plays a “subordinate role”. These direct relations are of 

“dominance and servitude.” Marx felt religions were created due to “the immaturity of the 

individual and direct relations of dominance and subordination.” Both of these reasonings 

were directly correlated with the poor productivity in these societies. 


[847] Camhol: I believe that the fetish-like character of a commodity has been around 

ever since man first surfaced on this Earth. Christianity was not even on the map when the 

caveman figured out how to harness the power of fire. I can see Mr. Caveman going to his 

friends and showing them the wonderful commodity of fire. His friends react with desire that 

leads them to ask him for the fire, but the caveman having intelligence notices that now that 

he has something none else has he has an ability to gain from his possession. He requests a 

trade for something to help increase his own use-values. Hence, the start of the commodity 

relation. 

From the Jews during the 2000’s B.C we see that they did trade their various commodities 

using either barter or currency of some type as evidenced by the sons of Jacob going to 

Egypt in order to purchase grain for their families. Moses ben Mamonides (1135-1204) a 

Jewish scholar further detailed (usury, trade, loans, and interest) Jewish trade and markets 

in his book The Code of Maimonides. Thomas Aquinas, a Catholic scholar in his Summa 

Theologica also detailed the scriptural references for business within the Catholic Church 

and its membership. I believe that the Protestant movement away from Catholicism, the 

establishment of the United States of America, and the slave trade blossomed the global 

relation of the already existing fetish-like character of the commodity. The exchanging of 

commodities for gain fed into the new view that we control our own destiny as long as we 

follow God’s will allowed a person to increase the value of their commodities guilt-free. 

Once guilt-free, a whole new paradigm of thinking and invention was sparked by looking at 

either the ingenuity or hard work of that person. This started the commodity process that is 

still going on today where Marx shows that by human-labor value is driven. 

Hans: Your theory of commodities and fetishism is diametrically opposed to that of Marx. 


[848] Phatteus: Christianity has a connection with the commodity relation. Christianity 

views the virtue of a person by looking at the things that they have done or abstained from, 

instead of looking at the goodness that the person has within them. A person maybe scrutinized 

and deemed a sinner because they have chosen not to follow the laws and commands 

of the church, when in fact they may be a very good person in relation to humanity, however 

because of this “rebellion” they are looked down upon. 

The same is true with a commodity. Once the commodity enters the market, it its “value” 

or “goodness” are based upon the laws and conditions of the socially driven market. If the 

commodity fails to live up to the expectations of the market, it is no longer viewed the same. 


The commodity or item still has a use-value which may be very beneficial for society, but 

because it is compared to the rest of the commodities in the market this may change. 

There are many commodities which can be of use to mankind in great ways, yet because 

of the market and how this is viewed in relation to all other commodities, its value may not 

been seen. Just as with Christianity, a person may do good things for society and humanity, 

but because they may choose not to abide by the rules of the church, they are not viewed as 

virtuous. 

Hans: Excellent! 


[855] Surferboy: Of course there is a connection between the commodity relation and 

religion. Many different components that make up religion such as tithing come to mind. 

What is tithing? Tithing is a commodity. Members of a religion pay ten percent of their 

earnings and expect that God will bless them in return. Tithing has a high exchange value 

for those who pay it because they benefit from its payment. The concept is quite simple, you 

give to receive. God’s help is for sale as long as he receives payment. 


[859] PAE: Yes I think there is relationship between Christianity and the commodity 

relation. In both cases a something is being exchanged for something else of value. In the 

case of Christianity people exchange charity, prayer, service and many other things for the 

chance of blessings in the present as well as the after life. Obviously in the commodity 

relation people place value on objects or services and exchange something else for that 

commodity (It may be money or another commodity). In Christianity I believe people place 

a value on heaven or a better spiritual life and decided if it is worth it to give to charity, 

volunteer, or simply go to church. 

Hans: You are attacking Christianity where it is weakest and also not really typical, one might say you are building 

up a straw man here. Marx’s own critique was an Achilles-heel critique; it attacked Christianity where it is strongest. 

Parmenio: An “Achilles-heel” attack by definition isn’t where one is strongest, it is where one is weakest. Achilles 

only vulnerability was his heel, if someone would have attacked him anywhere else he couldn’t be defeated. So 

how does that phrase hold up? 

Hans: Instead of attacking the weakest warrior, you defeat the strongest warrior by finding his hidden weak spot. 

Message [859] referenced by [956] and [2011fa:519]. Next Message by PAE is [869]. 

[871] Demosthenes: graded A Christianity and the commodity. This question has already 

been the source of interesting discussion. Instead of adding my thoughts on the virtues 

and vices of sexual exploration, however, my remarks will address another angle. 

It has been discussed that commodities come into the world as a use-value, and mature 

with an exchange-value. (I discussed this in my homework submission [213].) In short, as 

commodities are subjected to the complex human social network, they are granted qualities 

that are not present in their original state. A hammer’s use-value, (the value that it is given 

as it comes into the world), is to pound nails, to be used as a doorstop, etc. The addition 

of an exchange value, which is bestowed by social forces, alters the hammer’s purpose and 

destiny. 

Christianity also came into the world in a different form than the one in which it shows its 

face today. Christianity was not conceived with the intent to sedate, control, or intimidate the


underclass. Only when Christianity “matured” in the incubator of the human social network 

did it become an oppressing giant, one who tranquilizes as it tyrannizes. 

Both the purpose of the commodity and that of Christianity have been twisted from their 

essence to something that serves the elite few by exploiting the many. 


[874] Gutter: graded C What I get from Marx here is that religion, for whatever purpose of 

creation, (immaturity or direct relations of dominance and subordination), served individuals 

as a commodity. A commodity’s purpose is to satisfy a need, so is religion. The point is that 

both, a commodity or religion, is a benefit to the individual who posseses it or embraces it. 

Hans: If you think in such generalities, you can probably find connections between everything and everything else. 


[877] COMMI: A class member wrote that Christianity and commodities have a connection 

through labor. A commodity is raw-material that has been converted to a commodity 

through human labor. This human labor is what give the commodity value. In Christian 

belief we need to do good works in order to increase the value of our souls. Without the 

labor being put into ourselves we are just raw materials and we can’t be saved. Hans wrote 

in (476) that goods have to go through the market to be purified and useful for people. Marx 

sees this as an unnecessary step. It seems that Marx has the same opinion for religions. He 

sees the market and religions unnecessary. 

Hans: In the in-class answer you had written: “In Christian belief we need to do good works in order to purify our 

souls.” This fits together better with your argument. Don’t water it down. 


[888] Snickers: graded A Yes, there is a slight connection between Christianity and the 

commodity relations. In the Christian faith virtue is measured by how well one has learned 

the faith and how they use that faith towards their everyday life. For example, the wrist 

bands that say WWJD? “What Would Jesus Do?”. This may hinder some people’s actions 

like those discussed, such as sexual acts. The commodity relation has a similar barrier to 

it, the market. A commodity is produced that for society it is very useful but before it can 

be used, it must be “purified by the market”. For example, some medical drugs that help a 

lot of people but kill a few and is consequently taken off the market. In the market, “it does 

not count as the useful labor that it is, but it is measured as abstract labor against all other 

expenditures as abstract labor in society.” (Hans) Marx feels that this is not a good thing and 

this is where I draw the connection between the two. The market itself prohibits many useful 

items from society, so does Christianity, such as sex, where it uses almost like a scare tactic 

method of why not to have sex. 

Final Grading Note by Hans: You are a careful thinker and have many good, original, sometimes refreshingly 

simple but very compelling insights, such as the comparison here of the sales constraint with WWDJ armbands or 

your mention of drugs in connection with modern forms of pauperism in [1855]. I also like your formulation of 

Christianity’s “scare tactic method of why not to have sex.” You call things by their names. 


[894] Fidel: Marx saw a connection between Christianity and the commodity relation in 

the ideas of repression and purification. In his view Christianity seeks to value a human’s 

soul by how well that person has repressed carnal desires. This repression of natural desires 

is a purification that readies the individual for eternal reward. 


In relation the capitalist commodity is designed to repress the value in order to increase 

profit. The purification with a commodity takes place in the free market where value is 

determined by exchangeability with other commodities. As Hans noted in post [476] both 

the commodity and the religious individual go through an “abstraction” that “poses difficult 

and irrelevant constraints”. 


[895] Thelonius: The Christian Commodity. There are many similarities between the 

commodity relation and Christianity as a structure of organization. The structure of Christianity 

represents the same capitalist mode of commodity production as Marx described any 

other. All of the important elements are present. First and foremost, the class structure 

of parishoner (working class), and church leadership (capitalist). The church is a factory, 

which produces the grace of Jesus Christ and the faithful cannot access this on their own 

but must address the church and pay its price through grace, works and offerings. This 

was precisely the criticism Frederick Nietzsche brought against the church, for according 

to Nietzsche the church enslaved the working class by claiming property over their souls, 

and it was only through the mechanisms of Catholicism that a person’s soul could be saved. 

The church made this saving grace of Christ its own product to distribute, though the parishoner 

commits sins (use/exchange value of commodities), atttends church (commodity exchange/production), 

paid tithes and alms (commodity exchange/production) and worked in 

church capacities (commodity production). 

While the priesthood would play the role of management in this production process, the 

Bishops, Cardinals and Papacy play the capitalist hierarchy, and the faithful christian the 

exploited worker. At one famed point in Church history, in order to fund its holy wars 

the construction of religious edifices, the Catholic church made the sale of grace for sins 

an almost perfect money-form exchange relation. A sinner could even pre-pay for the sin 

he/she was intent upon committing, the richer you were, the more holy you could become 

despite your own actions. 


[899] JJ: graded A Christianity and the Commodity relation. To understand the relationship 

between the commodities and Christianity, the commodity needs to be likened unto 

a human. In Christianity a human must rid his or herself from the “bodily encumberances to 

become more pure souls”(pg. 173-174). 

A commodity must go through a “purifying ritual” known as the market (HANS)[476]. 

At the market all “usefull labors” are NOT appreciated for what they are, rather they 

are seen only as congealed abstract labor (HANS)[476]. A Christian likewise must rid his 

or herself of impure practices. Both the market and Christianity unnecessarily “strip-off” 

certain characteristics of the commodity or the human. For the market the commodity is 

stripped of its useful labor and for Christianity humans are stripped of their privilege to have 

sexual relations(HANS)[476]. It is these unnecessary restrictions in which both Christianity 

and the Commodity relation are similar. 


[906] Cdew: In a certain context there is a connection between Christianity and the commodity 

relation. For a commodity to have use or be considered useful, it must go through the


process of abstraction or “purification” through the market. This is not a good thing, since 

many useful and productive commodities being produced will not be allowed by this market 

therefore will not be going through this process of purification and thrown out. Christianity 

uses the idea that people who have suppressed their sexuality are considered “pure” by 

having conquered their self control. However, we should not deny our sexuality, according 

to Marx, as we should not deny commodities that could be truly advancing and useful to 

society just because it is prohibited through abstraction-the market or Christianity. 


[909] Sparrow: The connection between Christianity and commodity relation is in the 

way that the labor process must survive the rigors of the market so to must humans shed 

their mortal limitations and become pure. Another connection is the way that value relation 

takes away from the usefulness of labor. This is similar to the way in which Christianity 

takes away from the mortal aspects of humans. These connections are only applicable in 

modern religions and do not appear to be valid in ancient religions. 


[915] Mason: A commodity producer whose general social relation of production must 

treat products as commodities, hence as values is much the same as Christianity. Christianity 

treats their members like commodities, or values. Because each member has worth to the 

establishment. For example they pay tithing, may provide work for the church, and may 

provide other helpful services. A quote from Hans I believe is a great example between 

Christianity and a commodity relation on page 173 says, “just as the labor process must rise 

above its local and traditional character to withstand the test of the market, so humans must 

strip off their bodily encumbrances to become pure souls.” The commodity must stand out 

and adapt in order to stay alive in the market. This is also true with Christianity where you 

will not be a successful Christian if you do not obey the teachings and resist the “natural 

man” in order to truly be considered a true christian. You must adjust and strip yourselve 

from the world. In the commodity relation you must have a good relations in all aspects 

of the market from the producers to commodity relations. This holds true in christianity as 

well. You must have good relations with all the members and administration in the church 

to be recognized as a great member. 

Hans: Commodity relations are not hierarchical. 


[922] TriPod: In the class response [475] MrPink talked clearly of tithing and how the 

more tithe you paid the closer you become to God. I believe this truly exists today. I feel 

like in religion the more money you make the more tithe you pay and the closer you come to 

being holy. I would have to agree with Bubbas’s conclusion in [496]: Question everything, 

religion as well as capitalism. Again Christianity would be completely different without 

commodities. 


[924] BBQ: Is there a connection between Christianity and the commodity relation? 

The average individual on the street believes that Christianity is a religion that imposes 

a particular morality with specific ethical behavior. A Christian is one who lives by certain 

rules and regulations imposed upon him by divinely inspired ‘thou shalts’ and ‘thou shalt 

nots’. The behavioral conformity to these moral codes of conduct is what the Christian 


strives to perform in order to please and appease God. Christianity puts emphasis on the 

“good deeds” performed in this life with hopes to warrant a better afterlife. 

The simple definition of a commodity states that it is a social relation which gains value 

from the amount of labor put into it. Acts of service often involve the use of the human body, 

which in turn provides value to the soul. As the commodity gains value from labor, so does 

the soul gain value from religion. 

Next Message by BBQ is [1060]. 

[929] Legolas: Marx views religion in a very interesting manner compared with today’s 

society. Although he believes that Christianity is the most “fitting” form of religion, he still 

views religion as a “superstructural” phenomenon that partially overtakes society through its 

social relations, and he addresses religion as a social phenomenon. He relates the commodity 

relation, for modern religions in modern times, through the journey the human body takes 

as believed by Christians. He says that just as the value abstracts from labor and individual 

production so does Christianity abstract from some of the more “bodily” aspects of humans. 

He then relates the ‘resurrection’ of the body to the labor process withstanding the test of the 

market. As a commodity is all raw or finished good, so is the human soul with or without 

the body. 


[956] Parmenio: Odd phrasing? In response to a [859] Hans says “Marx’s own critique 

was an Achilles-heel critique; it attacked Christianity where it is strongest” in response to 

someone’s critique of Christianity as being on it’s weakest point. 

An “Achilles-heel” attach by definition isn’t where one is strongest, it is where one is 

weakest. Achilles only vulnerability was his heel, if someone would have attacked him 

anywhere else he couldn’t be defeated. So how does that phrase hold up? 


[958] Hans: Odd phrasing? Parmenio [956] asked: 

An “Achilles-heel” attach by definition isn’t where one is strongest, it is where one is 

weakest. Achilles only vulnerability was his heel, if someone would have attacked him 

anywhere else he couldn’t be defeated. So how does that phrase hold up? 

Instead of attacking the weakest warrior, you attack the strongest warrior by finding his 

hidden weak spot. 


[1815] MrPink: graded A– My comments in the exam: Yes, there is a connection between 

the commodity relation and modern Christianity. I say modern because I do believe that 

the original form did not have monetary measured rewards. As people started associating 

wealth with closeness to god the act of donation/tithing became a clear measure or way to 

get into heaven. This created a marketplace where exchange of commodities is closely tied 

to Christianity. 

My comments for the resubmission: 

I have read through the archives of previous semesters and the current semester. While 

my in class exam submission is similar to my homework submission [475] I still feel it is 

a valid connection. I also found Phatteus’ response [848] eloquent and a good connection


which I had not considered before. He/she discusses that both commodities and people are 

judged within the social norms. In the Christian norm homosexuals might not be acceptable 

(dependant on the sect) however they can still be useful and contribute to society. 

Hans: What do you make of Marx’s statement in [172:1/o] that “For a society of commodity producers ... Christianity 

with its religious cult of the abstract human ... is the most fitting form of religion”? 


[1939] Danske: In-class answer: Marx’s connection is in the social construction of exchange 

value or use value of a commodity. These values may not reflect the labor input 

value because there is an “artificial” aspect that is reflected in the exchange or use value of a 

commodity. Christianity is a strong form of social construction that plays a part in creating 

the classes and thus the values of a given commodity. 

resubmission: I want to disagree with Astclair [806] when he said that Marx does not 

make a connection between Christianity and commodity relations. Marx was pointing out 

the social force certain Christian beliefs have had and continue to have in defining value. As 

Hans [476], Tink [486], Bubba [496], SueGirl [813], and others point out Christianity has 

defined many values for society. Not all are oppressive or negative. However what defines 

value (use or to some extent exchange) but socially constructed views of the object. Marx 

is criticizing the artificial atmosphere that compells a specific response without regard to 

understanding the object or idea, its uses, and possible real value. I realize that my in class 

answer was not headed in the right direction, however I do believe the aspect of this relationship 

that Marx is expressing is not as hidden or hard to find as some of the submissions 

indicate. We are looking at a socially constructed system of values that looks not just at the 

soul but at all aspects of life. I agree with Keltose [840] that the social phenomenon is where 

we find the comparison. 

Hans: Christian values cannot influence the economic relation which Marx calls “value.” According to Marx, 

commodity value is determined by labor content alone. If a society adopts Christian values, this may affect the 

quantity produced of certain commodities, but not the labor-time it takes to produce them. 

Final Grading Note by Hans: You are saying many things which have no connection with Marx’s theory. This is 

not a general essay-writing class but the goal is to understand Marx. 

First Message by Danske is [289]. 



Question 272 Can labor be measured in other ways than in time? 

[481] Mjk: Let me point out another way the labor can be measured rather than in time. 

When I read Marx’s implications about the measurement of the labor it is based on time. 

Hence, the focal point and it is an extra way we can measure the labor is also based on 

wage rate and period of age, that economists and well developed companies’ managers who 

weigh the scale or degree between employee’s wages and their ages based on the amount of 

the labor they do. 

Also, we can understand that when a worker works with the employer, worker needs 

money and the company wants profit. In this case, company measures the labor by the 

wage and age, for instance, if the worker is 18 years old, his wage is low but the worker 

reaches a certain age of forties, the wage rises. When the worker arrives at the age, 65 where 


retirement is at the door the wage becomes low too, which means that the younger you are, 

the lower wage you earn and the older you are the lower wage you earn as well but in the 

prime-age the wage goes up when you are 40 years old. 

However, we can measure the labor by the wages and ages over time. For example, we all 

know that hours of work and age at work are the most important elements we should know 

in the workable standards in an economy periods. Consequently, a typical worker will work 

more hours to the labor when the wage is high and work fewer hours when the wage is low. 

In conclusion, we have to know that as an economists, managers of the companies, business 

people, employees, and private sectors ownership that labor is measured by wages and 

ages in addition to measurement in time. Let see an example, a very young lady or gentleman 

worker has low wage and low hours because she or he is in the younger ages. How do 

you think about that situation? But when that worker arrived at his or her prime age, she 

or he cam earn more hours and more wage. At the end , at the age 65, low hours and low 

money. 

Mostly, if you are so young, 18 or 19 years old you have less hours to work and low wage, 

while at more ages say 40 or 50 years old, your wage rises up with hours of work and lastly 

declines in both during the retirement. 

Hans: Measurement of labor by the age of the worker is an interesting observation. But your English needs much 

more work. 


[493] Jerm: Labor itself is not homogeneous which makes us unable to measure it quantitatively. 

Therefore if it is to be measured in one number, it must be broken down to abstract 

human labor. Abstract labor (or labor power) can be measured in ways other than just time. 

It can also be measured in money. One cannot always determine how much labor is put into 

the production of a commodity. All that is seen is that commodity on the market and how 

much it would cost to buy it. The price represents the amount of labor needed to produce 

that commodity. Marx says in the annotations, “...the measure of labor by its duration is 

expressed in the magnitude of the value of the product.” Therefore, abstract labor can be 

measured in money rather than only in terms of time. 

Hans: You are right, money represents labor (in Marx’s theory). But everybody is hunting after money. This 

continually creates disturbances, so that money is not a very reliable measure of any specific labor. It is like trying 

to weigh something on a boat in the middle of a storm. 


[494] Prairierose: Yes, there are definitely additional ways to measure labor instead of 

using time. However, in a capitalist society our only alternative is to first reduce labor to the 

only measurable common denominator which is abstract human labor. Although, even in a 

capitalist society if the labor is not producing a commodity it can be measured in different 

ways. For example, housewives and stay at home moms do not measure their labor in units 

of time. Another example would be if I agree to file your income tax return in exchange for 

you cutting my grass; we are utilizing a barter system and not measuring our labor in terms 

of time. 


[514] BBQ: We make assumptions about measuring time based on our ready familiarity 

with clocks, watches, etc. We speak of hours, minutes and seconds. However, these are just


ways we talk about the passage of time. Over the weekend, I spent time with my 4 year 

old nephew. I found it amusing that the actual concept of time meant absolutely nothing to 

him. However, telling him “your mom will be here after you watch one more spongebob” 

made perfect sense and he ran upstairs and was a little angel. As we observe processes and 

activities and results of change, how is the passage of time directly observable? Ounces of 

gold are not only a form of manifestation of abstract labor but also a way of telling time. 

We can take any activity that produces a result and use the result to refer to the passage of 

time. So the idea that we can measure unskilled labor without money just means we can tell 

time in some other way. We can use a clock, but then we measure concrete labor rather than 

abstract labor. 


[516] Parmenio: graded A Another way that labor can be measured is output, how many 

units of a product a person actually produces. A real example is where I work (Hertz), 

some people get paid by how many cars they wash. Output would also be what a person 

on commission gets paid, they only get paid if they “sell” a unit, or number of units, if they 

don’t make sales then all the time they spent is meaningless. 

Or one could measure effort, this isn’t easy but it happens from time to time. An example 

of this is that if someone tries to make something that took a lot of their time, but the product 

they produced isn’t up to specification. When this happens they wouldn’t be given full value 

for their time, because the product didn’t work, but they would be given a percentage of this 

depending on how much “effort” they contributed (sometimes worked out in a contract). 

(An example is a landscaper I know, he was supposed to landscape a lady’s lawn, she 

didn’t like everything he did, but he had already done a lot of the labor. He didn’t receive 

all of the money they agreed upon, but was given less than he would have received if the 

product was done to her liking). 

Another is that some people get paid on output, but they have a base pay just in case a 

particular day, week or month isn’t going well, this way they will at least receive something 

if things don’t work out. 


[517] Diggity: graded A– Measuring Labor. The most common way, as we know, to 

measure labor is the amount of time spent performing the production or service. There are 

other ways to measure labor. By rewarding workers with compensation for the amount of 

goods/services provided is an excellent way to encourage increased efficiency. Of course, 

the hourly wage can also be determined by the productivity of the worker. So, what is the 

difference, and what is preferred? Commission-only jobs can be risky. If you do well, you 

are rewarded with a big check, if you are struggling, you will receive a small check or no 

check at all. Being paid for the amount of time spent working is appealing to survive the ups 

and downs if things are going so well at work. 


[520] Ash: graded A– At first glance the answer to this question appears to be yes. However, 

after thinking of it as Marx did I would have to say no. Let me explain. 


Marx defines value as the amount of abstract labor involved in the production of a commodity. 

He also says that exchange value is how we quantify, or define, the value, as it would 

be almost impossible to measure the abstract labor in any given commodity. 

That being said, value has three characteristics: 1. abstract human labor, 2. socially 

necessary labor time, and 3. social form. All of these are ways in which we, as a society, 

measure a commodity; or quantify it. The socially necessary labor time may be less than the 

average abstract labor involved in a commodity, but that would be due to technology and/or 

skilled labor. 

Labor, if it is to be defined as something other than time, would have to take the form 

of the socially necessary labor time. However, knowing that this may include technology 

and/or skilled labor, thus, reducing the amount of time to make a commodity, this would 

still be a measurement of time when you break the socially necessary labor time down to the 

lowest common denominator, averaging in all of the hours either needed to become a skilled 

laborer, or to produce the technology. When we begin to dissect the measurement of labor, 

it all comes back to one thing – time. 


[521] Jimmie: graded A Measure of labor. In Ash’s response [520] he/she used value to 

form an analysis of labor and its measure. If we are to use time as the measurement of labor 

then it must be broken down to some sort of abstract labor, but I do believe that labor can 

and has been measured in other ways than time. 

A society could measure labor in output, which is the case for many jobs which do not 

pay a laborer for time, but for meeting output quotas. I once worked a sales job which paid 

100% commission. If I worked 100 hours without a sale I made nothing. Does this mean I 

did not labor? 

Feudalism also presents another way in which a society could measure labor. Since feudalism 

relied on mutual obligations between serfs and nobility, labor by the serf provided a 

certain amount of crop in return for protection. In this case output is the measure of labor, if 

the serf meets the quota then he is given or “paid” with protection. 


Question 275 is 189 in 1997WI, 241 in 2002fa, 250 in 2003fa, 281 in 2004fa, and 303 in 

2008fa: 

Question 275 What did and what didn’t the classical economists find out? 

[512] Maymae: The classical economists Marx was referring to did recognize the role that 

value held in relationship to labor. Their failure came when their system of theory didn’t find 

explanations for the money system and its relationship with value, and consequently with 

labor. This was especially true when looking at more complex aspects within the money 

system, specifically in banking. This failure came mostly when viewing the core meaning 

of money but considered its place only in the social arena missing its true worth. 

[586] Bosox: The classical economists were able to implicitly show the distinction between 

the labor represented in the value of a product and the same labor manifest in its


use-value. For they treat labor sometimes from its quantitative aspect and at other times 

qualitatively. 

Marx declares that “one of the chief failings of classical political economy is that it has 

never pursued the analysis of commodities and more specifically of commodity value to 

the point where it yields the form of value, or that what turns value into exchange-value.” 

They overlook the exchange relation of commodities, to its quality and quantity. They didn’t 

figure that out, but simply ignored it. 

Hans: The distinction between concrete useful labor and abstract human labor is one of the main points which 

classical economics missed (according to Marx). That they made this distinction implicitly, without knowing it, is 

proof of the inevitability of this distinction, but it should not be considered an achievement of classical economics. 

They did look at exchange relations. but they did not understand how money arose. 



2007fa, 319 in 2009fa, 347 in 2010fa, 326 in 2011fa, and 341 in 2012fa: 

Question 276 What is Marx’s difference between bourgeois economists and vulgar economists? 

[472] ADHH: graded A A Bourgeois Economist is one that spends the time and resources 

to research the inner relationships found in all aspects of production. They make earnest 

attempts to uncover the interconnectedness of all the relations of production and do not rely 

on others to do the investigating. 

A Vulgar Economist is one that only looks that the relationships from the surface, relating 

as truth only those points that meet the status quo and that push the agenda of the Bourgeois. 

This type of economist contemplates and regurgitates the work of others instead of doing 

any of the research himself. These economists do not add anything original to the work 

done by the other economists. 

Message [472] referenced by [505] and [507]. Next Message by ADHH is [564]. 

[505] Mason: Bourgeois economists take a much more in depth analysis of the economy. 

They will research and derive their own opinions of the economy. A bourgeois economist 

will not rely on anyone else’s research other than their own. They focus most of their attention 

on production. They specifically will try to find the inner workings of commercial 

activities such as the buying and selling of commodities, wares and services. 

Marx accuses vulgar economists of dragging their feet when it comes to investigating 

economics. “Vulgar economists who only flounder around within the apparent structure 

of those relations, ceaselessly ruminate on the materials long since provided by scientific 

political economy, in order to lend plausiblity to the crudest phenomena for bourgeois daily 

food.” A vulgar economist only looks at the outside of the production process and does not 

take an in depth look such as the bourgeois economist does. Marx tells us also that a vulgar 

economist will “confine themselves to systematizing in a pedantic way.” As you can see this 

differs from the in depth approach of the bourgeois economists. 

Hans: There is a lot of overlap between your answer and ADHH’s [472]. 

Message [505] referenced by [507]. Next Message by Mason is [572]. 

[507] Hans: Sciences and Pseudosciences. Although Marx strongly disagreed with 

many findings of the classical economists (Ridardo, Smith, Petty), he studied them carefully 

and used many of their concepts in his own theory. By contrast, he had only disdain for 


certain other economists, whom he called “vulgar” economists (Say). In his view, the vulgar 

economists were not really scientists. 

The lack of depth which Marx attributes to the vulgar economists is shared by much 

of modern mainstream economics. Some modern Marxists and Marxist-inspired thinkers 

consider the things that are taught for instance in a principles of economics course to be 

“ideology posing as a science” (like an infomercial), or a “pseudoscience” (like astrology). 

They are extending Marx’s critique of vulgar economics to the modern time. 

Presently we live in a time of crisis, in which structures that were long considered as solid 

begin to crumble, and many things that had been considered to be truths suddenly appear 

doubtful. This is an especially fertile ground for pseudosciences, since people get confused 

about it what is real and what is not. In such turbulent times, a realist, depth-oriented, and 

dialectical understanding – in short, Marxism – is more necessary than ever. 

At least, this is what Marxists think. But I am digressing. Both answers so far, ADHH’s 

[472] and Mason’s [505], say in an indirect way that vulgar economics is not really a science. 

This is certainly in the spirit of Marx. But one of the criteria used by ADHH and Mason is 

that a real scientist does all her research by herself and does not rely on the work of others. 

This is a misunderstanding of the character of scientific work. You cannot do science as a 

solitary individual. Science is always a collective enterprise, and a big part of it is to learn 

the thinking of others and to build on it. Marx was very conscientious in this regard; he had 

excellent knowledge of the mainstream economics of his time, and spent a lot of time to 

determine in detail what he considered right and wrong in their writings. 


[511] Dandy: Difference between bourgeois and vulgar economists. According to the 

Marxist premise, a specific class could rule only so long as it best represented the economically 

productive forces of society. He then analyzes two groups of economists, the bourgeois 

and the vulgar. 

The bourgeois economists forms of thought showed social validity and conditions of a 

definite historically mode of production. According to the bourgeois economist the value 

of a product is determined by the labor employed in its manufacture. This shows that they 

focus much of their attention on production. The development of these ideas showed that 

the destiny of the commodity surplus on the market and that of capitalist profit are identical. 

Marx was critical of the bourgeois economic theory. The consider economic institutions 

as natural institutions, which resemble religion. “Every religion which is not theirs is an 

invention of men, while their own is an emanation of God.” 

The vulgar economist does nothing else but to interpret others’ ideas. Vulgar economists 

subscribe to the principles of land, rent, capital-interest, and labor wage. Marx says that 

these are three incompatible propositions. Vulgar economists do not bother to analyze or 

understand the facts, and the contradictions of their theories. 


[900] Tomek: Marx considered that a specific class could rule only as long as it represented 

the economically productive forces of society.


Marx says that the bourgeois economists base their actions on the information they get 

from thorough analysis of the current economical condition. The views that are supported 

and expressed by the bourgeois economists are effective in the current condition of economy. 

They measure the value of the product in the quantity of labor that was put forth to produce 

it. The focus of bourgeois economist’s attention is on production and the products. Their 

findings showed that in the conditions of the commodity surplus on the market the profits 

become lower. Bourgeois economists also try to find out how the mechanisms of buying, 

selling and producing commodities on the market work. 

Marx says that the vulgar economists pay little attention to investigating the consistent 

patterns of the market “Vulgar economists who only flounder around within the apparent 

structure of those relations, ceaselessly ruminate on the materials long since provided by 

scientific political economy, in order to lend plausibility to the crudest phenomena for bourgeois 

daily food.” — says Marx. Vulgar economists usually are not interested in the in-depth 

analysis of the economic processes; they rather consider economy to be a set of uncomplicated 

operations. Another failure that Marx sees in the vulgar economists’ approach to 

economy is that they will “confine themselves to systematizing in a pedantic way.” It is obvious 

that the vulgar economists’ approach is less deep and thorough than the bourgeois 

economists’ approach is. 



2010fa, 328 in 2011fa, and 299 in Answer: 

Question 279 How does Marx know what commodities would say if they could speak? 

[490] Karlwho: graded A Marx writes “If commodities could speak, they would say this: 

our use-value may interest men, but it does not belong to us as objects. What does belong 

to us as objects, however, is our value. Our own intercourse as commodities proves it. We 

relate to each other merely as exchange-values.” 

Marx is saying the riches (meaning use-value) of the commodity, in fact, do not belong to 

the commodity, but to man, whose interest the riches are. He continues by alluding to say that 

the commodity contains social properties because of the way it relates to other commodities. 

Its exchange value is brought to pass by its relationship with other commodities. The use 

value of the object can be determined by any individual, without the means of exchange, 

whereas exchange value of a commodity as an object can only be determined in the important 

social process of exchange. There is contradiction here. The commodity’s use-value is what 

man desires, yet it is another value (exchange value) which determines how the object is 

obtained. Use value has nothing to do with the value which the commodity contains as an 

object. Use value is what the man is seeking from the commodity, and yet it is the man 

who perceives the commodity actually contains this value. Man does not understand it is 

his relationship with the commodity that brings about use-value. A commodity contains no 

use-value alone as an object, but when you add man to the equation, a commodity can be 

used and therefore has use-value. A commodity alone has the value of itself and nothing 

more. Exchange-value is brought about by the relationship between a certain commodity 

and another commodity. 


In answer to question 279, Marx observed the properties of the commodity and the relationships 

between man and the commodity. To further prove his point, Marx uses the quotes 

of two economists to support this idea. With this evidence Marx knows what the commodity 

would say if it could speak, and I agree with him. 

Hans: Although your answer is strictly speaking wrong (see my [523]), you are saying a lot of good stuff. 

Final Grading Note by Hans: This submission here seems symptomatic for the entire Semester: you say many 

good and thoughtful things, but you also have many things wrong. 


[500] MarxSchmarx: graded A– Conversing Commodities. When Marx assumes what 

the commodities would say to each other, he is basing the discourse on what he knows about 

the value and use-value of the goods. This paragraph sums up nicely what the whole first 

chapter is describing. 

The commodities themselves know what they are, and relate as much to each other. They 

realize that they do not have use-value just by being a commodity. The “owner” of the 

commodity derives its use-value. 

Value, therefore, is what is inherent to the commodities, and is expressed when exchanged. 

This is the only thing that the commodities possess, the ability to be broken down 

into abstract labor in relation to another commodity. 

Hans: Had the commodities said that the sky is green, you would probably have found a well-sounding justification 

for that too. 


[501] Pete: graded B Marx knows from decades of study and experimentation that exchangevalue 

and use-value are different. Value means different things depending on the use of the 

word. 

Now I’m not so sure he can speak commodietieseze. To speak for an inanimate object or 

thought is reaching. True, he quotes two different economists to prove his point. Which is 

just that, his point of view. 

If Marx had a market on the truth and knowledge there would be no need for opposing 

views. It is very nice that he attempts to put words into a diamond or bag of peas but he 

is trying to put a meaning on use-value and exchange-value that the bourgeois economists 

could understand. 

Hans: It does not take decades of study and experimentation to know that use-value and exchange-value are different. 

This difference is the immediate practical experience of anyone handling commodities. It is the starting point 

of Marx’s scientific inquiry, not its result. 

Marx quotes the other two economists not in order to back up anything that he himself thinks is correct, but in 

order to show to the reader that these economists are as stupid as the commodities themselves. 


[523] Hans: How can our darling commodities be such fools? If a commodity could 

tell us how it experiences the world, it would become apparent that it is just as misled by 

the fetish-like character of social relations in a commodity society as the human agents are. 

When the commodities say that the use-value does not belong to themselves but to the humans, 

this is obviously wrong, since it is exactly the physical properties of the commodities 

which makes them useful to humans. The values, on the other hand, does come from the humans; 

it is not based in the commodities as objects but in the social relations of the humans.


The commodities therefore have it exactly backwards. None of the three answers seems to 

have recognized this. 

Hans: Here is a later elaboration in the light of what I wrote in my comment to [969]: Commodities see things 

wrong because they symbolize the social relations people find themselves in, and these social relations are wrong. 

This is the fetish-like character of the commodities. 

Message [523] referenced by [Answer:16], [490], [779], [930], [2007SP:271], [2007SP:482], [2007SP:501], [2007SP:548], 

[2009fa:227], [2009fa:495], [2010fa:500], and [2011fa:248]. Next Message by Hans is [533]. 

[702] MK: In defense of Marx knowing what commodities would say, if in fact they 

could converse, I believe that Marx would know because he understands (and has expressed) 

that a commodity itself is misled by the fetish-like character of (in this case) human social 

relations. If in fact commodities expressed (or conversed) that they obtained their use value 

from human beings – they would be mistaken– for their use value is an innate quality which 

the commodity itself possesses. Human beings supply the value aspect of a commodity in 

the form of social relations. In other words, the commodites would give the wrong answer 

to the question of their own nature – because they are misled by the fetish-like character of 

social relations. 

Hans: The are mislead because they relate to each other as if their use-value was of no concern to them, and as if 

their value was a substance sticking inside them. 


[731] Robgodfell: graded A Speaking Commodities. If commodities could speak they 

would reflect the same fetish-like character that we as consumers see in them. 

“Oh, alas, what a great and wonderful value am I, my value is as inherent as light is to the 

sun in that I am complete and natural a creation unbeholden to any producer’s whim...and 

use-values, blah!, those I leave where they belong: to the consumer...they aren’t mine!” 

In short, commodities are as equally unaware and blinded (until of course socially aware 

commodities develop a sentient understanding of their place in relation to the society that 

produced them) as are the consumers who confuse the price tag as if it were the inherent 

quality of the commodity as opposed to the added-value of human labor resultant as a process 

of human labor. 

Hans: Excellent! 


[732] Zone: graded A In the annotations 173:3/o Marx states that, “If commodities could 

speak, they would say this: our use-value may interest humans, but it does not belong to us 

as objects. What does belong to us as objects, however, is our value. Our own intercourse 

as commodities proves it. We relate to each other only as exchange-values.” This means that 

commodities do not understand their use-values. Their use-values come from their application 

as a commodity. Their values do not belong to the commodities as stated above. Their 

values are given to them by society through the exchange process. This is exactly opposite of 

what the commodities say in 173:3o. Marx is making a joke to say how ridiculous humans 

are in their attempt to show their social relations through the commodities they own and 

not through their own worth. Like when a person buys a really expensive car to show their 

superior status in society. The person does not understand that their personal value comes 

through their own applications and not through the exchange process. 

Hans: Marx says that commodities get their values not in the exchange process, but much earlier, in the production 

process. 



[759] Dange: graded B+ A commodity is produced for exchange for value on the market. 

The core of the commodity is its value - how much abstract labor is congealed in it. The 

value expresses itself as exchange value on the market. The use value of the commodity is 

how much use does it have–what can you use it for? This is what commodities would say 

about themselves if they could speak according to Marx. 


[770] Pisciphiliac: graded A What would a commodity say if it could speak? Commodities 

make two claims regarding themselves. First, commodities believe that their own use-value 

belongs to humans and not themselves. They also believe that their value belongs to them. If 

the commodities would simply look at it logically, they would see that they are backwards. 

The use-value is owned by the commodity itself, because commodities’ usefulness is derived 

from its physical properties. One the other hand, the value is not something inherent to the 

commodity, it is not discovered until it enters that trading arena and is compared and valued 

against other commodities. 

Hans: You should say better, value is not something inherent to the commodities as objects but comes from human 

society. 


[772] Bubba: graded A Marx’s example of talking commodities simply illustrates the 

commodity fetishism inherent in bourgeois economics, because he has them say the same 

false view that these economists hold. When they say use-value belongs to humans, but 

value belongs to themselves, they have it backwards – use-value comes first because of their 

natural properties (e.g., that which makes a grape a grape), which they hold; and value comes 

from the human labor bestowed upon them. Therefore, they actually own their use-values, 

and humans own the value. 


[773] ADHH: graded A Marx based his assumptions in regards to the dialog of commodities 

on the interactions that occur between commodities during their exchange. If commodities 

could speak they would say that their use-values are based on the behavior, attitude and 

social relationships of the people. They would say that their use-value has nothing to do with 

them, that it is not a characteristic that belongs to them. In this regard, the commodity is 

partially correct. A commodity can only have a use-value if its natural properties are useful 

to someone. But their use-vaule is based on those natural properties that make it useful. 

The commodity would also say that the only characteristic that does belong to them is 

their value, which is expressed through exchange with other commodities. In reality, the 

value of a commodity is based on social relationships. In this belief, the commodity is 

incorrect. So the commodities are just as confused by their fetish-like characteristics as the 

owners are. 

Hans: Your in-class answer had an interesting argument. You wrote: 

Marx does not know what commodities would say if they could speak. That is because a 

commodity’s value is based on social relations and not the commodities themselves. 

You are right. Marx does not know, and does not pretend to know, what the commodities themselves, as objects, 

would say. Marx is inferring from the market activity of the things what the things would say if they could speak. 

As you say, this activity does not come from the things themselves but from human activity. That is why it is 

justified to impute speech to them.



[779] DarkKnight: graded A “Why can’t you love me for who I am?” Marx knows 

what the commodities would say if they could speak because he has discovered, through 

his study, that commodities are improperly represented on the market. Marx wrote that 

commodities would say: “Our use-value may interest men, but it does not belong to us as 

objects. What does belong to us as objects, however, is our value. Our own intercourse as 

commodities proves it. We relate to each other merely as exchange-values.” (Capital p. 176) 

In capitalism, the surface relations of the market distort their relationship. The commodities 

are like teenagers with poor self-esteem; they don’t see their intrinsic value when they assess 

their value through society’s lens. When the commodities say that “their intercourse as 

commodities proves it”, they are looking at their relationship through the lens of the market. 

If we take away the market, then the products (they aren’t commodities in this circumstance) 

would relate to each other as use-values, which are inherent in their own physical properties. 

In order to relate to each other as values and exchange-values, the commodities need to be 

in the market, where the social relations of humans have effect. Hans, in [523], succinctly 

says “The commodities therefore have it exactly backwards.” 

Hans: I love your metaphor with the teenager with low self-esteem. 


[791] Iblindone: graded A Commodities 

tell you what they want to say with their interactions 

with other commodities within a 

(As Submitted:) Commodities tell you 

what they want to say with their interactions 

with other commodities within a mar- 

ket. They tell you about there underlying 

use value and the amount of abstract human 

labor inherent in the commodity with 

market. The commodity tells you about its 

underlying use value and the amount of abstract 

human labor inherent in the commodity 

through its ability to be traded with other its ability to be traded with other commodi- 

commodities. 

ties. 


[794] Nazgul: graded A On pg.176 in Capital, Marx makes the statement, “If commodities 

could speak, they would say this: our use-value may interest men, but it does not belong to 

us as objects. What does belong to us as objects, however, is our value. Our own intercourse 

as commodities proves it. We relate to each other merely as exchange values.” 

How can Marx make the above assertion? The entire chapter 1 of Capital lays the groundwork 

for it. He gives the reasoning and logic prior to making the statement, so that at the 

time it is made there should be no need to question it, but rather, realize it. 

Commodities are defined as something produced for sale or exchange, however, it is 

the commodities’ property of value which will allow and require it to be exchanged on the 

market. It is not use-value that requires it nor is it the exchange value, both of which are 

objects outside of the commodity. All commodities are not equal in use-value or exchange 

value, but “all commodities, when taken in certain proportions, must be equal in value” (pg. 

136). 

In the second paragraph of Capital it states that commodities are an object outside of 

us. The natural form of commodities as stated on pg 148 is its value form. It is vital to 


understand the commodity because “The circulation of commodities is the starting point of 

capital” (pg 247). 

Hans: The natural form of the commodity is exactly not its value form. 

Your in-class answer is quite different, and I also liked it a lot. 


[817] MarxSchmarx: graded A What Marx knows about the commodities, and what 

they would say if they could speak, is that the fetish-like character of themselves misleads 

the commodities. In the text, Marx writes that the commodities would say “our use-value 

may interest humans, but it does not belong to us as objects” [Marx 176:3]. This is the 

first instance of where the commodities were mistaken. The useful characteristics of the 

commodities are what the humans are after. These characteristics are represented by the 

commodity’s physical qualities. If they were useless, there would be no use-value. Earlier 

in Capital, Marx states that the use-value of a commodity can be hidden deep within it. 

He gives the example of a magnet attracting iron. For a long time, it was just seen as a 

“curiosity” [Ehrbar p. 11]. It wasn’t until the discovery of the polarity of magnets that the 

use-value was discovered. The physical characteristic of the magnet was always there, it did 

not become useful until discovered by humans. 

The second error in the commodity discussion is “What belongs to us as objects, however, 

is our value” [Marx 176:3]. The value (exchange-value) is only displayed after a social 

interaction. In order for one of the commodities to have value, it would have to relate itself 

to other commodities. This is not something that the commodities do by themselves, but it 

takes human interaction with commodities to come up with the value of a commodity. 


[823] Gza: graded A Marx is being comical when he “relates” to us what commodities 

would say if they could speak. His statement is an illustration of the symmetric counterpart 

of commodity fetishism. People act as if the social properties of commodities stem from nature 

while commodities relate to each other as if their natural properties come from humans. 

Thus, Marx suggests if commodities could speak they would say: 

“Our use-value may interest humans, but it does not belong to us as objects. 

What does belong to us as objects, however, is our value. Our own intercourse 

as commodities proves it. We relate to each other only as exchangevalues.” 

(Marx 177) 

This relates to Marx’s observations of the monetary system. He says people fail to see 

money as a representation of the social relation of production. People instead view money as 

a physical object (which it is) with distinct properties. This establishes the illusion of money 

being a “thing” rather than a social relation. 


[826] Picard: graded A Marx believes that he knows what they would say because of how 

man and economists particularly have defined commodities. When he writes their words we 

see that that they define their value and use-value as man would, believing that it is value 

which belongs to them. 

There is such a misunderstanding about commodities and their nature that they themselves 

must also have erroneous thoughts about what belongs to them. They might also have


a limited view of themselves. As noted in the class notes “they relate to each other as if they 

were thinking that the natural properties of commodities come from the humans.” 

Hans: The words said by the commodities are the view of the same fetish-like character of social relations, not 

viewed from the outside (economic agents) but from the inside (the commodities and the economists). 


[851] Elvis: I misread the question when writing my paper. Marx knows what a commodity 

would say because any commodity is brought about through interaction as a value. So all 

a commodity is to us is exchange-value. 

Next Message by Elvis is [993]. 

[854] Ernesto: Marx answers this question by focusing what the commodities have in 

common. He states that their use value is only what humans give them, however, they are 

able to define themselves in relation to other commodities and the relative exchange value 

between the commodities. The exchange value goes back to the value added through the 

labor of manufacturing. 

Hans: Do you really believe that commodities receive their use-values only from humans? 


[861] Utesroll: Marxs states, “If commodities could speak they would say this: our usevalue 

may interest humans, but it does not belong to us as objects”. He then explains that 

what does belong to the objects is their value. This is evident in the intercourse of the 

commodities and how they relate to each other. Marx knows that this is what commodities 

would say if they could speak based on analysis of commodities and their relationships. 

Marx states that commodities relate to each other as if they were thinking that the natural 

properties of commodities come from humans. This can be seen in commodities such as in 

the analysis of Samuel Bailey when he states, “Riches are the attribute of man, value is the 

attribute of commodities”. 

First Message by Utesroll is [860]. 

[918] Synergy: graded A This metaphor of talking commodities is right in line with commodity 

fetishism. It is the wealth or use-value that commodities have been “assigned” by 

humans: “commodities relate to each other as if they were thinking that the natural properties 

of commodities come from the humans” (Annotations, pg. 476). According to Marx, 

riches or use-value is considered wealth only in relation to humans. He then says that it is 

a natural aspect of use-value that we recognize and then give a certain wealth to it. “Take 

away from the grape the properties which make it a grape, and the use-value which it has 

as a grape for humans disappears; and it ceases to be, as a grape, an element of wealth.” 

(Annotations, l.c.) 


[920] Jimmie: graded A Marx concludes what commodities would say if they could speak 

by understanding that from their point of view, they do not exhibit use-value. They only 

exhibit value in exchange. For them use-value comes from humans. Humans, of course, believe 

that commodities are use-values, that affect society, through human interaction. Marx 

uses this analogy to point out that the idea of commodities not recognizing their use-value is 

as strange as humans not recognizing that their social relations come from themselves, not 

the commodities. 



[927] Jingle: graded B+ Marx writes: “If commodities could speak, they would say this: 

our use-value may interest men, but it does not belong to us as objects. What does belong to 

us as objects, however, is our value. Our own intercourse as commodities prove it. We relate 

to other merely as exchange-values.” 

The use value does belong to the commodities. Men do add or decrease the value of 

the commodity due to social structures. It is really what is important to society that makes 

the commodity have a higher or lower use value. Marx knows what the commodity would 

say because Marx is thinking that the commodities should have a use-value and that the 

commodities would be worried about their use-value, and how they are used in society. And 

that the commodities should be treated as something special in society. 


[930] Manchu: If a commodity could tell us how it experiences the world it would be 

confused. The fetish-like character of the commodity is a social fact: in capitalism, things 

are the carriers of social relations and therefore have a fetish-like character. A commodity 

would be misled by this character. As Hans stated in [523] “When the commodities say 

that the use-value does not belong to themselves but to the humans, this is obviously wrong, 

since it is exactly the physical properties of the commodities which makes them useful to 

humans.” 

When dealing with values however, the commodities’ physical properties do not come 

into play. It is the quantity of labour spent on it, meaning homogeneous human labour, 

(expenditure of one uniform labour power) that matters. 


[933] Stretch: Marx can tell us what commodities would say simply because he understands 

them. He has taken the time to analyze how their relationships work. He gives 

commodities human characteristics and can explain and even predict their behavior. Much 

like a doctor could after studying a patient in the same environment, the responses are the 

same over time due to the tendencies of the patient and the behavior is predictable. 


[934] Guerito: graded A Commodities Speak. We have the tendency to be critical of 

others more than ourselves. Sometimes we don’t know how out of line we are until we see 

somebody doing something that drives us crazy and then realize that we do the same thing 

ourselves. The commodities are speaking to each other, not to humans: “our use-value may 

interest humans, but it does not belong to us as objects.” Though we are not directly spoken 

to, Marx uses this conversation amongst the commodities to show us how we communicate 

with each other and how funny we can be in understanding how we function socially. We 

act just as silly as the commodities. We confuse the roots of social relations just as the 

commodities confuse the roots of their use-value. 


[936] Sonja: graded A Marx would say that if commodities could speak they would tell us 

that their use-value is not inherent to them as objects but that it is something that is assigned 

to them by people who need their use-values. Commodities would also tell us that their 

values belong to them unlike use-values. They would say this because commodities themselves 

have addopted the fetish-like characteristics people assigned to them. This distorts 

their perception and flips their use-values and values around. The use-value is inherent to a


comodity, whereas the value of a commodity is something decided by the social relations in 

which that commodity is produced. 


[969] Ash: graded A– In-class answer: By the qualities inherent in the commodity. Either 

because of intrinsic qualities built-in by nature, or qualities added by human labor power 

and the concrete labor needed to produce a finished good. 

Explanation: Marx knows what a commodity would say if it could speak because of the 

social implications commodities have on society. I.e. a commodity is not useful to itself, 

but only valuable to someone else. Therefore, it would not have use-value only value, or 

exchange value. However, if the other economists are correct and use-value equals riches, 

then, commodities do not hold value for us, only use-value. 

Hans: Your answer gave me the hint I needed myself to answer this question correctly: by the speaking commodities 

Marx verbalizes the social relations in which the commodity owners find themselves, while the point of view of 

the commodity owners themselves, which in chapter Two differs from that of the commodities, is the point of view 

of the individual who finds herself in these social relations. When the commodities say that they are not concerned 

about their use-values, this echoes Marx’s statement in section 1 of chapter One that the exchange relations are 

characterized by an abstraction from use-values. 


[984] Snowy: In-class answer: Marx knows that a commodity would confuse use-value 

and value if it could speak. Marx says that a commodity would think that its value was 

based on the good that it brings to its user/owner. Further, the commodity would think that 

its use-value is derived from the labor that is put into it to make it. 

Hence, the commodity would speak of use-value and value conversely or oppositely from 

Marx’s definitions of value and use-value. 

Correction: I tried to explain that the commodities would think that its use-value does not 

come from them but from humans, and its value is not based in the commodities as objects 

but in the social relation that occurs. That is what Hans explained if a commodity could tell 

us how it experiences the world. I tried to explain that, but this is a clarifaction if I did not 

do that. 

Hans: It is not a matter of definition, but it is a simple fact that their use-value belongs to them as objects, while 

their value comes from human society. They do not see this properly because their experience, their actions and 

relations as commodities, is at odds with these simple facts. Marx says their relations are fetish-like. 



2011fa, and 344 in 2012fa: 

Question 280 How is it a manifestation of fetishism to speak of “rich” people and “valuable” 

things? 

[522] Picard: graded A According to the economists whom Marx quotes a value of a 

thing (its exchange value) belongs to that thing. Marx later says that this theory has never 

been proven by science. 

Profesor Hans gives us a passage written by Marx which says that it is actually the usevalue 

that is a property of a thing. “It is by its own property that something is a use-value”. 


Concerning the use of the term “rich people” it is also a manifestation of fetishism because 

this term says that use-value is “an attribute of man”, meaning it is because of man 

that a thing has a use-value – but as mentioned above Marx says that a use-value actually 

belongs to the commodity. 

Message [522] referenced by [584] and [2010fa:478]. Next Message by Picard is [597]. 

[544] Geo: graded C Manifestation of fetishism. It is a manifestation of fetishism to 

speak of “rich” people and “valuable” things because both contexts include a relation to 

the commodities. The basis of “rich” people, or the socially constructed definition of rich 

people, is the possession of or power over commodities. The use values of commodities 

come not only from their physical composition but also from their relation to humans. Much 

like the example of the grape used in the annotations. Likewise this fetishism is manifest in 

speaking of valuable things because value is derived through the exchanges which take place 

socially, hence the socially created fetish like behavior towards commodities. Commodities 

surpass significance of simple need for survival and become socially defining ‘valuables’ to 

an individual. 

Hans: Marx’s famous first sentence “the wealth of bourgeois society takes the form of commodities” does not 

mean that the wealth of individuals is measured by how many commodities they have. 

Despite your single quotes, your use of the word “valuables” has nothing to do with Marx’s value. 

You are full of interesting thoughts and ideas, but I think you would still benefit if you tried a little harder to 

understand how Marx is looking at the same issues. 

Message [544] referenced by [584] and [1869]. Next Message by Geo is [545]. 

[584] Hans: Disregarding prior answers: not a good idea, especially during the exam. 

Whether a person is talented or not is a characteristic of that person; but whether a person 

is rich or not is a characteristic of the place that person has in society, not of that person 

herself. 

Likewise, the value of a thing is not a predicate originating in the thing itself but it is 

again a social relation for which the thing is merely a conduit. 

Forgetting the social dimension of these predicates can be called fetishism. 

Picard’s [522] was the only homework answer; he argued along similar lines as I just did. 

Geo’s [544] was submitted during extra-credit times. He didn’t mention Picard but started 

an entirely new argument based on the thesis that everything that has to do with commodities 

must be fetishism. This is clearly a less compelling argument than Picard’s. In the exam, 

such an anwer will be taken as evidence that you didn’t prepare well, and it will not get good 

grades. 

It is possible that Geo had not intended his [544] for the extra credit assignment, but that 

it was a late homework submission. Had this answer been submitted during the times when 

question 280 was assigned, his disregard of a better prior answer would also have diminished 

his grade. 

Message [584] referenced by [2008fa:440], [2010fa:233], and [2012fa:247]. Next Message by Hans is [585]. 

[850] Bboarder: Fetishism is the belief that commodities possess human properties. It 

is therefore “fetishism to call a thing valuable because value is not a property of the thing 

itself.” So if you call a person “rich” because they own use-values of commodities then you 

are talking about the attributes of the use-values of commodities and applying them to that


person that does not actually have these attributes themselves but the commodities they own 

have the attributes so that is why it is a fetishism to speak of rich people and valuable things. 

Hans: Did you use [2002fa:111] for the definition of fetishism and did you put quotation marks into your first 

sentence because this was a quote from [2002fa:137]? 

Message [850] referenced by [1425]. Next Message by Bboarder is [1077]. 

Question 290 is 297 in 2004fa, 315 in 2007fa, and 320 in 2008SP: 

Question 290 Explain the difference between personal and private property. 

[696] Snickers: graded A– The definition of personal property is generally associated with 

moveable items that a person owns. They can be tangible like furniture and cars or intangible 

like stocks or bonds. While private property as Hans describes are privatly owned objects 

that the owner has complete control over but the owner has to abide by legal guidelines, 

that are more important than their own lives. This causes a dilemma because when you own 

something you want it to be all yours and be able to do whatever you want with it. Private 

property laws must be applied to the property “and take precedence over any human need” 

(Hans). No private property owner wants to act like that and feel that their private property 

is more important than everyone else’s but they are forced to. As Hans explains “People 

relate to each other in this way not because of human nature, but people are forced to relate 

this way because of the structure of the society they find themselves in.” So in conclusion 

the main difference between the two is that they both are what you own but private property 

has many laws applied to it that must be obeyed to the fullest. 

Hans: In modern language use there is the distinction between “personal” property and “real” property, the one 

being moveable, and the other being land and houses etc. This concept has nothing to do with the concept of 

personal property used here. 


[757] Claire: Personal v Private Property. The main difference between personal and 

private property is the social relation. “Private property is... not a relation between thing and 

person, but a social relation, because everybody else in society must respect your property” 

(p188). The owner of their private property needs to have an owner and have a relationship 

between the commodity and the owner. Marx states that the property also chooses the owner 

but since the property has no power, the commodity is either with its owner or with a theft. 

So the social relation is not personal but the commodity is owned by the owner in private 

property. Marx states that “private property becomes the means to access others’ property” 

(p 189) by using the exchange process. 

Personal property on the other hand has the right to exclude others form using things 

because they are part of your person, such as clothes, car, home, photos or books. Your 

personal property is for your own use, not to exchange to use other people’s private property. 


[760] Synergy: graded A Personal and private property. Personal property as stated in 

the annotations is property that is part of your person and can be excluded to others because 

of its personal nature. This would include things such as clothes, books, cars and home. 

In [2004fa:219] GFunk states that personal property is a use-value item that is controlled 

exclusively by its owner to fulfill their specific wants and desires. Hans also states that 

“many things you use for your personal enjoyment do not necessarily have to be private 

property” because they are of a private nature. 


Private property is not a relationship between thing and person but a social relationship. 

Property is not assigned to us, but we acquire everything that we have by an act of our own 

will. Private property is a relationship of respect–meaning that one must respect the private 

property of another. This is evident in the exchange of property. Property owners have complete 

control over their privately owned objects, but must subject themselves to the respect 

of private property. We become guardians of our property and when the time for exchange 

comes we look to the respect of private property to find a fairness of exchange. The people 

involved in the exchange find this respect, whether legally or not, in the form of a contract. 

It is the governmental and social contract that recognizes property as “private.” Therefore, 

“private” is more of a social label placed on a commodity that is owned by someone and 

is considered their “private property” whereas personal property is probably something that 

wouldn’t have much exchange value because it is of such a personal nature and is used as 

such. 

Message [760] referenced by [767]. Next Message by Synergy is [910]. 

[761] Camhol: Personal property differs from private property in that private property is 

personal property with a government and social classification attached to it. This classification 

is necessary for the ability to exchange your property on an exchange-value basis. I believe 

that is because personal property is distinguished as property that you use for your own 

use-values, whereas private property is personal property that you allow to be exchanged 

because you yourself receive no use-value from your commodity. 

Marx states that, since an owner of a commodity receives no use-value from that commodity, 

he will bring it to market in order to exchange it with other commodities that do give 

him use-value (179). Marx then talks about how these commodities are then converted into 

value in order to bring equality to the exchange table. This happens because of the alienable 

characteristics of commodities since they are external things to man. Therefore “it is only 

necessary for men to agree tacitly to treat each other as the private owners of those alienable 

things ... independent of each other” (182). 

In your annotations you have a few points which I believe help finalize my remarks: 

“On the one hand, the property owners have complete control over their privately owned 

objects.” Presently this is evidenced by our own current ownership of automobiles, houses, 

jewelry, etc. In our current society a consumer becomes the private owner as he/she purchases 

the various commodities in the markets. Once ownership of those commodities is 

recognized by society, we have the ability to re-exchange our property if we so desire to 

fulfill our use-value needs. 

The other point you make is “[o]n the other hand, they must subordinate their wills to 

a legal framework which forces them to put the respect of private property above everything 

else, even above their own lives.” It is this legal framework which solidifies society’s 

recognition of our ownership but gives society the dilemma that since we now privately own 

things and it our own self-interests (evidenced by our selfish buying and selling of our own 

private property) are driving the market and not the common good. This then shows that 

since mankind has the ability to sell anything, we value everything higher than our own 

selves.


Hans: Your second paragraph seems to say that people equalize their products as values in order to be able to 

exchange them. This is not a correct view of the causality involved (according to Marx). Perhaps one might say: 

they equalize their labors in order to be able to coordinate production, and their exchanges are this coordination 

of production. Even this is not correct, because it describes the outcome of their activity and pretends that this 

outcome it the direct goal of the participants. Their direct goal is not to equalize their labors but to excel over 

others, not to coordinate production for everyone but to get as much advantage as possible for themselves. 

Marx is looking at the market interactions and says: these ubiquitous exchanges are only possible because 

people are equalizing their labors. One should not conclude from this research method of Marx that the agents are 

equalizing their labors in order to be able to exchange. 


[767] Hans: Private property gets too much justification from personal property. All 

four answers were good and thoughtful. Personal property, as defined here, has nothing to 

do with the modern-day distinction between personal and real property. It is those things 

which belong to you as a person, your clothes or your toothbrush or your home. Nobody 

should have the right to take them away from you, and you should have the right to do with 

it what you want and to exclude others from it, since it is your private sphere. 

Private property is the form that personal property takes in capitalist society. It codifies 

the rights of exclusion and your freedom to do whatever you want with it. One shortcoming 

of private property is that it does not codify your right not to be expelled from it. We don’t 

have the right to have a home or even to have food when we are hungry. 

Another shortcoming of private property is that many things which are not personal property, 

and which should logically be treated quite differently, still have the social form of 

private property. For instance, [757] and [760] use books as examples of personal property. 

This is not a clear-cut situation. While there are obvious reasons why you should be able 

to exclude others from your toothbrush or your shoes, it is questionable why you should be 

able to exclude others from your books. I think all general information, including books, 

should be in the public domain, so that everybody should be able to download any book 

they want for free from the internet, possibly in a peer-to-peer network from your computer. 

Your booklist, however, your library records, and any annotations you make in those books 

should be considered part of your personal property. 

The classic Marxist example of something for which the concept of private property 

should not be applicable is of course means of production. Why should a factory, which 

can only be used by many people together, and whose output is essential for many others, 

be the private property of anyone? 

Message [767] referenced by [792], [1820], [2007SP:1194], [2007fa:319], [2007fa:483], [2008SP:266], [2008SP:275], 

and [2008SP:289]. Next Message by Hans is [811]. 

[785] Snickers: re: to hans on public vs. private property. I might be wrong on this 

one but i feel that a factory should be a person’s private property due to all the rules and 

regulation associated with manufacturing. If it was personal property they could do what 

ever they wanted with it such as change the wages and workin hours and make it almost like 

a sweat shop. 


[786] Snickers: response to hans on public vs. private property. RE: [290]: I might be 

wrong on this one but i feel that a factory should be a person’s private property due to all the 

rules and regulation associated with manufacturing. If it was personal property they could 


do what ever they wanted with it such as change the wages and workin hours and make it 

almost like a sweat shop. 


[792] Robgodfell: Snickers [786] wrote: 

“I might be wrong on this one but i feel that a factory should be a person’s private property 

due to all the rules and regulation associated with manufacturing.” 

According to what I understand to be Marx’s theory: the reason a factory would need be 

considered private property is so that the factory owner is capable of making the exchange 

process for other goods. So the goods he is trading must be protected under the private 

sphere. 

yet Snickers [786] wrote: 

“If it was personal property they could do what ever they wanted with it such as change 

the wages and workin hours and make it almost like a sweat shop.” 

I don’t think that the reason it isn’t personal property isn’t because they can’t exploit 

the worker, but because of the necessary relations needed to facilitate the exchange process 

between two producers or commodity owners/representatives of commodities—whatever. 

but Hans [767] mentioned in his previous email: 

“. . . the concept of private property should be inapplicable is of course [over the] means 

of production. Why should a factory, which can only be used by many people together, and 

whose output is essential for many others, be the private property of anyone?” 

So here, I wonder if I would infer the following statement then: And if a factory cannot 

be the private property of anyONE, it must be considered the private property of all those 

responsible and necessary for its output. This of course would not alter the exchange process, 

but the decision making abilities would be more diffuse, more hive-minded. 

(If that is off someone send a slap). 

But, if this is the case, and workers should have the marginal product of labor as their 

pay, what would then be owed to the owners of capital, the masters of accumulation? Would 

the investors, and business owners be capable of making interest still? Or do they too, take a 

percentage of the marginal product because they are responsible for the structural existence 

of the factory? Curious. 

Robgodfell 


Question 292 is 174 in 1995WI, 153 in 1995ut, 186 in 1996sp, 206 in 1997sp, 207 in 

1998WI, 312 in 2007SP, 322 in 2008SP, 320 in 2008fa, and 356 in 2012fa: 

Question 292 Which social relations must exist between producers so that they will exchange 

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

have social relations which preclude exchange between individual members. 

[754] Miron: Commodities can enter into relationship only under the condition of their 

“guardians” doing so. At this very point market relations are placed in a broader social


framework. From this point, the relations between commodities are determined by the nature 

of relationship and interactions between their owners. There are some prerequisites for 

such relationship. As Marx writes, “They [owners] must, therefore, mutually recognize in 

each other the rights of private proprietors.” This is the foundational principle of commodity 

exchange. However, there are some groups or societies which have social relations which 

preclude exchange between individual members. In some underdeveloped societies not all 

the members can participate in exchange. For instance, in tribal Africa women are still kept 

out of the public sphere and don’t enter market relationship, therefore, exchange there is 

more sluggish. Caste system in India implies that certain groups of people can’t enter into 

exchange with representatives of other castes. Some countries preclude exchange with those 

beyond its borders. These examples are numerous, but I tried to illustrate different types 

of social relationships that preclude exchange in order to demonstrate the importance of the 

social framework within which exchange occurs. 


[762] Iblindone: graded A– Split wills. They must recognize each other as “the private 

owners of their commodities” which is referred to as “a relation between wills” by Marx. 

This means that they agree that they privately own property and are held to the legal framework 

by which private property is treated. The reason why Marx refers to this as the “relation 

between wills” is because you own the property and you feel that you should be able to do 

whatever you would like with it, but yet on the other hand it must be treated in accordance 

with the laws that govern private property. Basically stating that you are not free to do what 

you would like with your private property but you are held within the confines regulating private 

property. This would not be possible within communism, because all goods produced 

are community property and are never really owned by the producer, but by the community 

as a whole. 

Hans: What is the relationship between your answer and [754]? 

Message [762] referenced by [2007SP:462]. Next Message by Iblindone is [776]. 


Question 294 If Proudhon draws his ideals of justice from commodity production, why does 

real commodity production then contradict these ideals? 

[780] Robgodfell: Proudhon’s Eternal Error. I mistakenly emailed this to a non-existent 

homework address; ’cause I’m a flippin moron and thus the obvious lesson to share: check 

your “To” field for the correct address. . However, I would still like people’s opinion as to 

the answer. 

This was question 294: 

Proudhon has taken the end juridical result (which may itself be a just measure in an 

unjust yard) and then made a claim that because of such an obvious manifestation of justice 

in a system it must therefore represent, as a Platonic Form, an eternal such representation of 

the ideal of justice. 

Marx dissents with an example which essentially claims that Proudhon has made the 

mistake of a chemist who ignores the mode of interaction between the molecules, and then 


claims that that mode must be modified to conform to “the ‘eternal ideals’ of ‘naturalness’ 

and ‘affinity’? [Ehrbar, 191]” 

So, when Proudhon believes that justice comes from commodity production, he has completely 

ignored the social actualities which created the commodity. He has become one with 

the fetish like character of commodities, blind to their socially given raison d’être. 

The juridical relationship (the market-based contractual implicit agreements between two 

commodity owners necessary for exchange and the recognition of private property which 

facilitates this exchange process —Austaushprozess- ) made necessary by the production of 

commodities is a fair, reasonable, and just consummation of a mode of production which 

is entirely unfair at its core, beneath the surface of the economy. It simply creates another 

illusion in a system, which decides that the duality of property-owner/human being -with 

property-owner as the king of the relation-and the concomitant exploitation and alienation 

of human beings from the fruits of their labor, as a just and natural outgrowth of human 

qualities. 


Question 295 is 302 in 2004fa, 320 in 2007fa, and 325 in 2008SP: 

Question 295 Do the persons represent commodities because they are commodity owners, 

or are they commodity owners because they represent commodities? 

[753] Tomek: This question requires an in-depth investigation of a dialectic relationship 

between commodity and its owner. Chapter 2 of Marx’s “Capital” opens with the following 

statement: “It is plain that commodities cannot go to market and make exchanges of 

their own account. We must, therefore, have recourse to their guardians, who are also their 

owners.” So, we can make a conclusion that the commodities don’t exist within the market 

without being attached to an owner. 

Moreover, we shouldn’t equalize commodity and owner: “What chiefly distinguishes 

a commodity from its owner is the fact that it looks upon every other commodity as but 

the form of appearance of its own value.” An owner always pursues he/r own pragmatic 

interest, therefore adding a flavor of subjectivity to the process. So what relationship exists 

between commodity and owner, if not the relationship of equivalence? Obviously, it’s a 

relationship of representation. But what goes first, ownership or representation? I strongly 

deem that ownership goes first. In other words, persons represent commodities because they 

are commodity owners. For instance, a person can own some material possessions without 

entering the market for the sake of their exchange. Thus, ownership is an objective category. 

But the same moment owner enters a market, possession becomes commodity, and owner 

becomes also a representative of this commodity. 

Final Grading Note by Hans: After this promising start, your performance deteriorated over time. I think this has 

two reasons. First, it takes a lot of time to absorb Marx’s ideas, and your schedule is too busy for that. Secondly, I 

suspect you took this class more because of its flexible form than because of your interest in Marx. Over time it is 

difficult to force yourself to do something you are not really interested in. 


Question 301 is 327 in 2008SP:


Question 301 What would it look like if the commodities only exchanged their souls and 

not their bodies? 

[750] Fidel: By nature the commodity is conditioned to exchange not just soul but body 

as well. Hans compares this to the instinct to procreate i.e. “a person’s animal instincts are 

eager to perform the sex act regardless with whom, while the person as a human being is 

much more selective about the person they want to share his or her life with”. The exchange 

of a commodity to the capitalist is a “realization of value”. This realization may or may 

not represent a full harvest of the value of the commodity. This exchange may deliver to 

the capitalist unpaid labor in the form of profit or it could represent a discount on the labor 

value. This is the exchange of the body. The capitalist will get the action whether it’s in a 

loving relationship or a relationship of needs. 

In contrast if commodities were to only exchange their souls it would look much different. 

The commodity would only be exchanged where values were made equal. The societal 

component would be taken out of the exchange and the commodity would be matched up 

with other like commodities or combinations of commodities until values were equalized 

thus they would find a soulmate. This would represent a more accurate valuation of labor. 

Hans: Marx is not talking about profits yet at this point; but your general idea that the exchange relations impose 

a constraint on the societal interactions is correct. 


[811] Hans: Soul partners. Marx writes that the commodities which the owners take to 

market are eager to exchange not only their souls but also their bodies. What would it look 

like if they only exchanged their souls and not their bodies, i.e., if the interactions between 

producers and consumers were not preoccupied with the exchange act? 

They would be able to communicate at much more depth with each other; they would 

compare their use-values, their labor content, and other costs and benefits of production and 

consumption of each commodity involved. Such interaction is necessary in a complex society. 

The fact that this interaction takes the crude and one-dimensional form of exchanging 

their bodies is specific to commodity societies. Marx compares commodity relations to a 

social system in which the only social interaction people have with each other is sex. 

Message [811] referenced by [2008SP:288]. Next Message by Hans is [824]. 

Question 303 is 333 in 2008SP, 331 in 2008fa, 345 in 2009fa, and 367 in 2012fa: 

Question 303 Marx seems to enjoy the play of words that immediately, a commodity does 

not have immediate use-value for its owner. Explain what he means by this. 

[699] Gdubmoe: graded A– Commodities are produced for the purpose of exchanging for 

other commodities that are of use-value to the owner. The owner has no immediate use-value 

for the commodities he produces because he only produces the commodities for exchange. 

For example, a T-shirt factory produces millions of shirts which are of no immediate usevalue 

to the producer but can be exchanged for commodities that are of use to the producer. 

The commodity is produced for the use-value that can be received from exchange but is 

not produced just to be exchanged according to the excerpt by Aristotle. An owner will 

solicit his commodity on the market in hope to receive a commodity that he feels useful to 


support himself or his needs. Lastly, the owner has no immediate value for the commodity 

he produces but only the value that it can be exchanged for. 

Hans: Aristotle says: “the sandal does not exist for the sake of being exchanged.” The sandal’s reason of being, its 

ultimate purpose, is to be worn, not to be exchanged. Nevertheless the sandal maker produces the sandals for the 

exchange. 

Message [699] referenced by [744] and [752]. Next Message by Gdubmoe is [844]. 

[744] Ernesto: Use-Value of a producer’s commodity. I agree with the previous answer 

[699] in part. However, I believe Marx is referring to the quantity produced by the producer, 

which eliminates the use-value to the producer. A bread maker will not trade his bread with 

another bread maker because it would be counterproductive if the bread was of identical 

quality and sort. I would submit that the excess of any given commodity produced fails to 

have any use-value. I think it would be similar to the idea of diminishing marginal utility. 

The more you consume of something, the less satisfaction and value is received. 

Message [744] referenced by [752] and [2008SP:854]. Next Message by Ernesto is [852]. 

[752] Hans: Now it’s a use-value, now it isn’t. Marx first says that the commodity 

doesn’t have an immediate use-value for its producer. Two sentences later he says that 

for the producer, the commodity immediately only has the use-value of being a means of 

exchange. 

Doesn’t the second sentence contradict the first? Shouldn’t Marx have corrected his first 

sentence to say that a commodity does not have an immediate use-value for its producer 

except that of serving as means of exchange? No, such a correction is not necessary: the 

use-value of serving as means of exchange is not an immediate use-value. Both sentences 

are true as stated. They do not logically contradict each other, although they do describe a 

contradiction. 

This contradiction, simply stated, is that a commodity that is produced for exchange is at 

the same time a use-value and a non-use-value for its producer. 

Gdubmoe [699] explains certain aspects of this dialectic. Ernesto [744] develops an alternative 

theory: the producers sell their commodities because they have so many of them 

that they no longer know what to do with them. Such a theory would apply for a tribe which 

produces things for their own use, but one year they have a bumper crop and they decide to 

exchange some of their surplus with a neighboring tribe. But in modern capitalism, the sale 

is not an afterthought but the original purpose of the producers. It cannot be explained by 

the producer’s marginal utility for the product. 

Message [752] referenced by [2008SP:854], [2008SP:883], and [2009fa:890]. Next Message by Hans is [767]. 


1997ut, 214 in 1998WI, 233 in 2000fa, 343 in 2008SP, 343 in 2008fa, 368 in 2011fa, and 

382 in 2012fa: 

Question 312 Why is the occasional exchange of surplus products between tribes not an 

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

[751] Fidel: The occasional exchange of surplus goods between tribes is not an exchange 

of commodities but of products. By definition in the capitalist system a commodity is produced 

expressly for exchange or sale. The commodity has as its sole purpose an exchange


value. From inception the commodity is much different than the surplus good. A commodity 

is envisioned as an intentional surplus while the product is an accidental surplus. This 

distinction is important because it is what differentiates the exchange of products from the 

exchange of commodities. 



1997sp, 213 in 1997ut, 290 in 2003fa, 327 in 2004fa, 342 in 2007SP, 352 in 2008SP, and 

377 in 2011fa: 

Question 321 Explain in your own words the meaning of Marx’s statement: “Although gold 

and silver are not by nature money, money is by nature gold and silver.” 

[763] Xerho: graded B Gold and silver are, in fact, metals from the earth. They are certain 

types of metals, just as iron, or aluminum, and looking at gold and silver from nature’s point 

of view, they are just two types of metals amoung many. In this sense, “gold and silver are 

not by nature money”. 

“Money is by nature gold and silver” due to the social historical context of money. Money 

is a socially-derived commodity that clings to a commodity with intristic fixed general form 

that can easily make the change to money form of value. Gold and silver easily make the 

change from general form of value to money form due to their socially justified value. 

Hans: You got the first part of the answer right, but not the second. See for instance Phelan’s [2004fa:225] for a 

good explanation of the second. 


[1422] Bboarder: Nothing is by nature money. Money is something that appears slowly 

as the need for value evolves. Money itself does not come from nature, it comes from society 

and an universal agreement regarding its use. Money is by nature gold and silver. The reason 

gold and silver is used is because it can be easily divided and value is easily ascertainable. 

If commodities such as cattle were used it would become much more difficult to exchange. 


[1476] Snowy: I wrote in the original exam: 

Gold and silver are not by nature money because to nature they are simply metals. 

Money is by nature gold and silver because gold and silver can be made into smaller 

equivalent pieces, they are easily transported, they can be counted/weighed (measured), and 

they can be contained. 

My resubmission answer is as follows: 

Gold and silver are not by nature money because to nature they are metals. Nothing is by 

nature money. 

Money is by nature gold and silver because money, as created by society, has certain properties 

which are inherent in gold and silver such as: it must be quantitatively controllable, its 

quality must be easy to determine whether it is good or not, it must be able to be divided and 

assembled, and it must be easily transported. Since the natural properties of these metals 

qualify for the preferred properties of money they took the social role of money. 


Final Grading Note by Hans: I can tell that you took the class seriously and your grades improved over the 

Semester. 


[1484] Claire: Marx’s statement: “Although gold and silver are not by nature money, 

money is by nature gold and silver.” This means that gold and silver can be commodities as 

well as used for money. Xerho [763] stated that “gold and silver are, in fact, metals from the 

earth” (Installment 2, p6). Gold and silver are metals that can be used for buildings, statues, 

dishes or jewelry. This is an example of gold and silver not being naturally money. 

By stating that “money is by nature gold and silver,” is interpreted by seeing our ancestral 

history of money. Our ancestors used gold to trade for commodities which later was made 

into coins. Silver and gold were always a natural money because it was a rare item used in 

trade. 

Hans: Your first paragraph is good, but the second is missing some important facts. 


[1504] Ace: graded A Gold and silver are not by nature money because by nature gold and 

silver are metals just like aluminum and iron, and these metals are mined out of the earth by 

nature, making them not money by nature. Money does not come from nature it comes from 

society’s evolution of commodity exchange. 

The second part of the statement that gold and silver are by nature money comes from the 

properties that gold and silver contain naturally. Gold and silver’s quality is unquestionable, 

they can be quantitatively controlled, and gold and silver’s value can be divided and also 

brought back together again. Another one of the attributes of gold and silver is that they can 

be easily transported, and exchanged between people and places. It makes it easier to use 

gold and silver as money as compared to other goods. 


[1530] Tesa: graded B+ Gold fever. There are Many useful and interesting ores and 

minerals that can be found in nature. Each has varying degrees of use-values to mankind. 

Gold and silver evolve from a process as natural as the rock and quartz that it forms in. 

Its history begins as a raw material that was found to have use-value and later used as a 

form of exchange just as any commodity. As it circulated in the general form it naturally 

evolved to the money form, because of its ability to be broken down uniformly to express 

the magnitudes of the value of every other commodity. (pg 184:1) 

Hans: The ability to be broken down is only one of several properties which seem to predestine gold to be the 

money commodity. 


[1544] BBQ: Gold and silver are natural resources that come from the earth. They are 

precious metals that exist naturally just like iron or platinum. Money itself does not come 

from nature, however it is a socially driven agreement. In this sense, “gold and silver are not 

by nature money.” 

The second portion of the statement states, “...money is by nature gold and silver.” Although 

money is a socially driven thing, gold and silver have natural properties which are 

appropriate for the use as money. Gold and silver are readily exchangeable due to their 

similarities in nature. Thus making money by nature gold and silver. 

Hans: Your second paragraph needs more explanation.


Final Grading Note by Hans: In many of your submissions, here and in [1542] and [1544] and others, you 

are aspiring to a simple and concise style in which every word counts and the whole thing comes together to a 

compelling argument. These mini-essays almost read like poetry. There are two problems with this. 

(1) This is ambitious but risky. If it succeeds it is awesome, but unless every sentence is an absolute bull’s eye 

it is unlikely to get the credit it deserves. 

(2) Marx is too difficult and, in general, reality is too unruly for such an approach. You cannot solve a difficult 

mathematical problem by singing a Schubert song. You must be more pedestrian and explicit, sometimes going 

zig-zag instead of following a harmonious tune, both in how you analyze and explain it to yourself and how you 

formulate it. 

Jimmie also wrote concise and simple contributions, similar to yours, see [1682], [1691], [1698]. But he did 

not try to derive everything he said as he went. Instead, he only explained Marx’s results in simple terms. This is a 

more achievable goal. 


[1546] Guerito: graded B+ The chicken or the egg, which came first? Such is the question 

with regards to the money commodity. Gold and silver were not born to be money; they are 

metals taken from the earth. Society in its search for a general equivalent transformed these 

metals into a commodity that could be compared to any other commodity to measure its 

value. Money is by nature gold and silver because of its unique qualities that can be equal 

in value to human labor. 

Hans: Which qualities of gold and silver “can be equal in value to human labor”? 


[1581] Gza: graded B+ Marx’s statement: “Although gold and silver are not by nature 

money, money is by nature gold and silver” refers to his analysis of the nature money and 

the exchange process. Gold and silver are not necessarily money because their value can be 

separated from money. However, Marx argues that money, as a general equivalent requires a 

commodity to be the standard for all other commodities, historically gold and silver. According 

to Marx money is only a reflection of the relationship of commodities. Gold and silver 

have use-value in and of themselves, apart from their money-value or exchange-value. The 

fact that gold and silver’s value is dependent upon technology is a sign of this and testify that 

they are themselves a commodity. As commodities, gold and silver have value outside of being 

a general equivalent because to get gold and silver requires labor and labor is the source 

of value of commodities. Money apart from gold and silver has two parts, its use-value seen 

as the use-value of gold and silver outside of their role as a medium of exchange, and their 

general equivalent. Marx argues that a commodity becomes money by a social agreement 

that decides every commodity will be expressed through another commodity such as in the 

historical case of gold and silver. However, only money, which is not necessarily gold and 

silver, can tell us how much gold and silver is worth. Gold and Silver as money have their 

worth established at the source of production and as soon as it enters into circulation its 

value is given. Marx sees here that the true distinction of money from gold and silver that 

can be used as money is that as gold and silver enters the market, one cannot see how the 

price level is determined or what it is. However, money is the price level and as long as gold 

and silver are used to determine the price level and the general equivalent, they are money, 

but have value outside this realm. 

Hans: All this text does not contain the explanation why money is “by nature” gold and silver. 

First Message by Gza is [40]. 

[1599] Pete: graded A After doing a lot of reading and piecing together other views on 

what Marx meant about gold and silver not by nature money. This statement is true. Money 


was created to represent a form of exchange in order to establish a way to value items being 

offered for sale. The same hunk of gold cannot buy a horse and one apple, that would be 

ridiculous. Money is a universal measure of value. Money was created by man not nature. 

Money is by nature gold and silver. This is where I finally understood what Marx was 

saying. Gold and silver have properties that make them agreeable to back money. The 

number one reason is that nature has a limited supply of these metals so their value are 

greater than those elements that are abundant. Another reason gold and silver are a good 

choice is that currency needs a control valve so it isn’t made in such quantities that if it were 

all cashed in the reserve (gold and silver) would be exhausted and the country would become 

insolvent. 


[1609] Bosox: Gold and silver are in fact, metals from the earth. They are certain types 

of metals, just as iron, or aluminum, and looking at gold and silver from nature’s point of 

view, they are just two types of metals amoung many. In this sense, “gold and silver are not 

by nature money”. 

“Money is by nature gold and silver” due to the social historical context of money. Money 

is a socially-derrived commodity that clings to a commodity with intristic fixed general form 

that can easily make the change to money form of value. Gold and silver easily make the 

change from general form of value to money form due to their socially justified value. 

Hans: It is not because of their value, but because of their use-values that money is “by nature” gold and silver. 


[1616] Jerm: Gold and silver are not by nature money. Money is something that develops 

over time as the need for a universal measure of value increases in a society. Nothing is 

money by nature. 

Money is by nature gold and silver. There are certain properties that are better filled by 

certain commodities. Marx explains on page 184 of Capital, that gold and silver have natural 

properties that are appropriate for the function of money. These natural properties that make 

it appropriate are that is must be divisible at will, it must be quantitatively controllable, and 

it must be possible to assemble it again from its component parts. Money is by nature gold 

and silver because they naturally possess these properties. 


[1632] Adamwest: Gold and silver are natural resources that come from the earth. If there 

was no trade or money there would still be gold and silver, it would still have its use-value 

as a unique metal. Nowhere in the use-value of gold and silver is money reflected. 

On the other hand, when all commodities express their value through gold and silver, it 

becomes the general equivalent. This general equivalent can be looked at as money. Money’s 

value is shown through gold and silver. Gold and silver as the general equivalent is not a 

permanent situation. If for example everybody started showing value through hats then hats 

would be the general equivalent. Instead of a pound of gold, it may cost 40 hats. 

Hans: Your explanation of point 1 is excellent, but your explanation of point 2 is wrong. 


[1641] Ash: graded A– Gold and silver have many different uses. It can be made into 

jewelry and other commodities, therefore, is not by nature money. However, money is a


medium of exchange which needs to be widely accepted and a universal form of value. Gold 

and silver have all the qualifying qualities of money, therefore, money by nature is gold and 

silver. 

Hans: Please explain better what the qualifying qualities of money are. 


[1650] Gutter: graded C Marx explains that gold and silver are not by nature money 

orginally. This is because it is made to be money through social processes. Again, it is not 

an original trait, but a product of social processes. On the other hand, money, as its original 

state, was created as a means of transaction using gold and silver. 

Hans: Your explanation of what Marx means by: “money is by nature gold and silver” is incorrect. 


[1655] MarxSchmarx: graded A Gold and silver are not money by nature because their 

first function is that of a commodity. They are natural occurring substances that become 

commodities after being extracted from the earth. They have many use-values besides having 

the capacity to become money. 

However, money is by nature gold and silver because there are natural characteristics of 

gold and silver that logically apply themselves to such. “Only a material whose every sample 

possesses the same uniform quality can be an adequate form of appearance of value. . . ” 

[Marx: 184:1] The commodity that represents money also needs a quality of being homogenous 

with all other samples of itself. Marx also states that the money material needs to be 

quantitatively manageable. Gold and silver are both divisible, but at the same time can be 

assembled back to larger forms. Money also needs to be transportable and recognizable 

between different communities. 

Hans: Gold and silver are no more by nature commodities than they are by nature money. By nature they only 

have certain use-values. 

Message [1655] referenced by [1860], [1900], and [1925]. Next Message by MarxSchmarx is [1777]. 

[1667] Miron: Marx’s statement “Although gold and silver are not by nature, money is 

by nature gold and silver” can have a variety of meanings. In my opinion Marx is stating 

that gold and silver are not interpreted in our world as actual money. If someone buys you a 

gold chain or silver chain you do not immediately think that this is worth so and so money. 

Its looked upon as an asset that is worth money. Money is by nature gold and silver because 

you can spend money to purchase gold and silver, it is very difficult to trade away gold or 

silver and get the optimum value for the gold and silver that you are trading in. Money can 

actually buy gold and silver its very difficult for gold and silver to buy money, it might have 

a monetary value but not necessarily as much as it could be. 


[1675] Tomek: “Although gold and silver are not by nature money, money is by nature 

gold and silver.” This statement means that gold and silver is what backs up the value of 

money without actually being actual money. Gold has always been considered a universal 

medium of exchange for many centuries. Gold reserves is perhaps the main reason why 

the British pound is still so prominent. It is fortified by gold reserves. Before the current 

paper and coin monetary currency we use, things were measured through gold and silver. 

Even economical status, to a certain extent, is measured by gold reserves. At the same time 

the value of gold and silver is more stable than that of other commodities on the average. 

Money is by nature gold and silver because money would be worthless if it wasn’t backed 


up by anything. To give money its value, you must back it up with something of value and 

this has been done for many centuries with silver and gold. 

Hans: At Marx’s time, gold was money. You could take it to the mint and exchange it for gold coins without even 

having to pay a fee for this. 


[1686] Overlord: By nature Gold and Silver are only metals which are found in the earth. 

They are not by nature money because money is something that is gradually accepted in a 

society. Gold and Silver, in bare metal form, by nature have not even been extracted from 

the earth. They have also not gone through this acceptance process in a society and so can 

not be money. 

To become money the Gold and Silver have gone through this process. They must become 

the socially accepted form of money within a society. The reason that Money is by nature 

Gold and Silver is because Gold and silver have certain properties that make them natural 

choices for money. Those properties, referring to [2004fa:225] are: must be quantitatively 

controllable, its quality must be an unquestionable factor, Equal quality of gold and silver 

is fairly simple to ascertain, must also be divisible and at the same time possible to be 

assembled from its component parts. Having these properties both Gold and Silver became 

money. 


[1687] TriPod: Gold and silver by nature are not money. In [2004fa:225] it says that 

nothing by nature is money. Money is something that appears slowly as a universal measure 

of value. Marx explains that gold and silver have natural properties that can function as 

money. Again gold and silver are easily transformed into a commodity. Gold Silver and 

Money are all created by society and contradict a commodity society. 


[1705] Xerho: graded A Gold and silver are not by nature money because as far as nature 

is concerned, gold and silver are just tow types of metals among many. 

Money is, however, by nature gold and silver because of the qualities they posses that 

can properly objectify money and represent worth. Gold and silver are quantifiable, transportable, 

can store value, and can be measured. 


[1711] Sparrow: Gold and silver are not by nature money. This is because by nature 

gold and silver are simply minerals and are no different than any other mineral. Money is by 

nature gold and silver because money is something that shares similar properties with gold 

and silver. Money needs to be convenient for use as a purchasing agent and its value needs 

to be easily determined. Gold and silver are able to be formed and molded into manageable 

shapes and sizes and it is easy to determine the value of different quantities of gold and 

silver. These properties allow gold and silver to be used as money. 

Hans: This is the right answer. But in class you wrote an interesting thought, which goes in the same direction: 

“Money is something that is deemed to be scarce. Gold and silver are minerals that are not as abundant as others.” 

Message [1711] referenced by [1839] and [1900]. Next Message by Sparrow is [1715]. 

[1720] COMMI: Gold and silver are not by nature money because they are just an ore 

from the ground. They are just like iron, aluminum, and other minerals that are harvested 

from the ground. Money is something that slowly arises as a universal measure is needed.


But money by nature is not gold and silver but they do have natural properties that make 

them appropriate to function as money. Money must be quantifiable controlled, divisible, 

“and its quality must be an unquestionable quality” (Phelan, [2004fa:225]) Hence gold and 

silver emerged as the general equivalent. 


[1726] Legolas: As Marx said, gold and silver are not by nature money. This is because 

gold and silver are natural ores mined from within the earth. They are not naturally money, 

because they would still exist without being used for money. Money began out of necessity 

in determining the value of a commoditiy. Gold and silver were given value, as money, 

because they were scarce and it were a measurable way (or weigh) to give value. Their 

‘natural properties’ were used as a function of money. On the other hand, money did not 

come into existence until value began being determined by its weight in gold (or silver). 

Money in its purest form has to be measured, therefore, gold and silver, through human 

labor power, were extracted from within the earth to create something which can be had 

for good or evil. Gold and silver, or bullion, was substant/tangible, before money, however, 

money was not tangible until the ‘general equivalent’ backing or measurement in gold and 

silver. 

Hans: Your explanation why money is by nature gold and silver is wrong. 


[1732] Manchu: Marx’s statement “although gold and silver are not by nature money, 

money is by nature gold and silver” has two parts. 

Although gold and silver are not by nature money means: gold and silver are precious 

metals that come from the earth and are among many other precious metals that are not 

considered money. 

Money is by nature gold and silver means: Precious metals have properties that can make 

it the perfect candidate to be used as a means of payment. It is rare and pleasing to the eye, 

but also durable, easy to transport, and recognizable. So even though gold and silver were 

not initially created as money, something like unto gold and silver would be a perfect choice. 

Message [1732] referenced by [1237]. Next Message by Manchu is [1733]. 

[1736] Phatteus: Gold and Silver are natural items. They were created by nature. Society 

has, in trying to find a basis upon which the value of an item can be built, chosen Gold and 

Silver (primarily gold) as its foundation. All items have a value upon which they are placed 

in the market, this is Gold and Silver. However, because society chose Gold and Silver as 

the basis for money, this can be changed to something else if desired. To some cultures, 

African Bushmen for example, water is more precious than gold. If there became a shortage 

of water and a mass surplus in Gold, it is possible that water could then be the basis upon 

which value is determined. 

Hans: But then the role of water as a store of value and that as a critical survival resource in the desert would 

continually get into conflicts. And one would need water-proof wallets. And what if it rains? 


[1784] Mason: In-class answer 

When Marx says that “gold and silver are not by nature money, but money is by nature 

gold and silver,” he means that gold and silver are inherently pre-disposed to hold this position 

of money. Because gold does not get its value from being exchanged for something 


else, it gets its position from the production process of the making of other commodities. 

Gold did not start out as money right from the start, it was a commodity first. Even though 

gold and silver’s worth or price will go up and down as other commodities will do, it is 

better this way because if it did not there would have to be a set price which would cause 

all the other commodities to go down as well. The gold standard represents abstract human 

labor. It becomes the general equivalent. Through this all other commodities express themselves 

through gold. Gold and silver are the only commodities that can hold all the other 

commodities prices for exchange, thus making money is by nature gold and silver. 

From what I’ve learned from the other answers is that gold and silver are not money by 

nature. Ace puts this very well when he says that gold and silver are just like any other 

metals, just like aluminum and iron. And that they became money not through nature but 

by society’s evolution of commodity exchange. And the second part is the actual physical 

make-up of these two metals. Even though you do need a general equivalent this does not 

make gold and silver it just through the evolution of commodity of exchange. Gold and silver 

must have other properties as well and this is what made them become this money form or 

the “general equivalent.” In Marx he states this on page 184 when he says that “since the 

difference between the magnitudes if value is purely quantative, the money commodity must 

be capable of purely quantatative differentation, it must also be possible to assemble it again 

from its component parts. Gold and silver have a dual use-value.” And these are the values 

that they contain from their natural state. And as Ace says in the archives this is what makes 

it easier to make these two metals money versus other commodities. 

Hans: Your in-class answer seemed to say that gold and silver are predisposed to be money because they contain 

labor. The correct answer is that their use-value must be something that can represent a homogeneous substance 

like labor. 


[1808] Cdew: Marx makes the statement “although gold and silver are not by nature 

money, money is by nature gold and silver” addressing the idea that we truly have created 

this so-called value and monetary system by placing such value on something that does not 

necessarily need it. Gold and silver are both natural resources that were part of the world 

before we got here and just because someone began using them as a medium of exchange 

they gained value, and continue to retain it now. Had others chosen to give value to another 

medium such as grass, that could have been considered the natural beginning of money. 

Hans: This is a copy of your in-class answer. Don’t you have any comments about it in view of the material in the 

archives? 


[1818] Will: graded C+ In class answer; 

Marx here is implying that although gold and silver in their basic form are natural objects, 

but because they hold a value that is represented by all it is the nature of money with in itself. 

Gold and silver are used in turn as trade values which from that create an exchange value of 

a given commodity. 

Comments on answer from annotations; 

1. Money is by nature nothing, but in terms of societal needs it is used in terms of trade 

because their form is easy to use for exchange. It is also easy to be divided and for that


reason we use it. With that if we used a commodity such as cattle of yarn such things could 

not be exchanged as easily. 

2. Gold and silver are metals that can be used for buildings, statues, dishes or jewelry. 

This is an example of gold and silver not being naturally money. 

3. Gold and silver can also be divided, transported and put back together again for a given 

exchange. 

4. Gold and silver within themselves are by nature natural, but when mined they become 

a commodity. 

Hans: When mined, gold and silver become a product, but not necessarily a commodity. 

I expect your commentary to look at your in-class answer and tell me what about it is right and what is wrong. 

If you don’t do this, your grade suffers. 

Message [1818] referenced by [1860] and [1900]. Next Message by Will is [1918]. 

[1822] Diggity: graded B– Original in class answer: Gold and silver are not by nature 

money, but money is by nature gold and silver because of the uniquenesss of these metals. 

These are products of nature that the only sort of effort is mining to obtain these metals. 

Any production on these metals will not increase its value. It has little if any use-value and 

therefore is a good standard of measurement as money. 

Comments: I didn’t include the social agreement Marx points out in the use of the Money 

form. And that this social agreement “only consists in the selection of a specific kind of 

commodity to which a form of value is to be permantently attached namely, the form of 

General equivalent (pg 204–205 Annotations).” On the archives, Phelan [2004fa:225] gives 

a detailed explanation that also involves a natural process for this social agreement to unfold. 

Hans: The question has two parts which are best answered separately. (1) What does it mean that gold and silver 

are not by nature money? (2) What does it mean that money is by nature gold and silver? 


[1839] BonzoIsGod: graded C Marx’s statement is saying that gold and silver have been 

used as a money standard, not that these elements are naturally money. These elements are 

harvested, then widely accepted as a practice of money, making the statement “money is by 

nature gold and silver” an integral part of his relation. Money would not by nature be gold 

and silver if there were multiple items which had accepted value, as in a bartering market. 

Hans: This is a literal copy of your in-class answer. The second part of it is wrong, as you could have easily seen 

from the archives which have the correct answer in [1711] and at several other places. If you resubmit your exam 

answer late, you are required to check your answer against the archives. 


[1860] Parmenio: graded C Original response: Gold and silver are commodities, because 

of this they can be exchanged for money, so by this process they are money. Howewer they 

aren’t by nature money because money can take many forms. 

Today we are off the gold standard so gold is not money. But how much money it takes to 

buy gold (say an ounce) is an indicator of how much inflationary pressure there is (depending 

on who you talk to). So even if it isn’t money, it still is a benchmark to look at. 

Resubmission. Gold and silver is extracted by abstract human labor from nature, and is 

therefore a commodity. Therefore gold and silver are not by nature money, they are only 

used by society as money because they can be quantitatively and qualitatively (how pure a 


particular piece of metal is) controlled and determined. It is easier to know how much and 

of what quality of gold one has than some other commodities, also these metals can also be 

reduced and transported easier than other commodities. 

My original response touched upon the fact that gold and silver are money, they are 

looked at as benchmarks (some people look to how gold reacts to see the relative value of a 

currency), but they aren’t because we are no longer on the gold (or silver) standard. However 

today paper money is only used and one major reason is because it is easier to transport long 

distances than metals like gold and silver are (one of the reasons gold and silver were used 

was for this purpose). 

Hans: Gold and silver are the product of labor, but this does not make them commodities. As I wrote in my 

comments to [1655], gold and silver are no more by nature commodities than they are by nature money. I made a 

similar comment in [1818]. Also it would have been useful had you heeded my comment in [1822] that the two 

parts of the question should be answered separately. 

If you want to explain “the meaning of Marx’s statement” you should first explain how Marx himself meant it, 

and he was of course referring to the gold standard. Then you can ask whether it still applies today. 


[1900] Matt: Gold and Silver by nature are commodities. They are extracted from the 

Earth and through means of production turned into such things as coins and other valubles 

that can be exchanged. When they are given a value to be exchanged they then become 

money. Money by nature is gold and silver because this is the form money takes in order to 

be exchanged and have a value. 

remarks: For the first part i think its important to explain that even if money were not to 

exist you would still have use-value in these precious metals. Money is nowhere expressed 

in their use-values. 

I think an important reason why money by nature is gold and silver is because this is 

what societies deems as a medium of exchange. They allow gold and silver to take on the 

use-values of different commodities and therefore have a value that can be exchanged. 

Hans: By nature, gold and silver are use-values or products, but not commodities. I said this in my comments to 

[1655] and [1818]. Also your second part of the question is wrong; see [1711] and elsewhere for a right answer. 


[1925] Danske: in class answer In explaining that “gold and silver are not by nature 

money” (Marx) is referring to the aspect of these as natural minerals that have use(s) and 

require labor to obtain or extract from the earth giving use value. Money has no use value. 

In the second part Marx refers to money as “by nature gold and silver.” Here he is referring 

to the exchange value that gold and silver have carried for centuries. In most case(s) early 

money was in fact gold or silver coin of a specific (weight or) value. This part refers to the 

exchange value of gold or silver or money. 

resubmission I feel that the first part of my answer covers that aspect of the question fairly 

well. Gold and silver are elements that have use value, money does not. 

However I failed in the second part to demonstrate what makes the second part true also. 

As Ace [1504], Jerm [1616], MarxSchmarx [1655], and Hans comments throughout 

demonstrate gold and silver have carried strong exchange value because they: 

1) They are both rare elements,


2) Each can be easily refined and crafted (some other materials also have these properties 

but lack the durability and/beauty over time of gold and silver), 

3) Both both have a brlliance and weight that add to the socially defined exchange value, 

4) These metals have historically carried a universal appeal in exchange value for other 

commodities and across political boundaries, 

and 5) Both are easily identifiable as gold and silver and can be readily divided or added 

together in an exchange. 

Hans: Marx was talking about the gold standard. At that time, money was a commodity, therefore had a use-value 

(other than that coming from its monetary functions). 

The second part of your in-class answer was not only lacking proof but it was furthermore simply wrong from 

the point of view of Marxist theory. Your point (5) is by far the most relevant and might be expanded to give a 

correct answer. (2) is irrelevant and may even be an obstacle, (4) is not a reason but re-states what needs to be 

explained. 


Question 328 is 192 in 1995WI, 227 in 1997sp, 219 in 1997ut, 297 in 2003fa, 359 in 

2008SP, and 387 in 2011fa: 

Question 328 Was Roscher in error when he said that money is a pleasant commodity? 

[743] Astclair: I believe that Roscher is correct in his assumption that money is a pleasant 

commodity. It is necessary to distinguish that money being pleasant does not mean that it 

brings you happiness. Money, in itself, is not the source of the pleasantness; the pleasantness 

comes with the attributes of the money. For instance, it is pleasant to know what you can 

accomplish with the money. Whether you use the money for a basic necessity, such as food, 

or for a luxury, such as a television, the pleasantness comes from knowing what you can 

accomplish with the money. 

Money brings a sense of security and flexibility, and alleviates some stresses which may 

occur without having it. A person doesn’t have to worry about bartering his or her linen in 

order to put bread on the table, so it is much less stressful (which means more pleasant for 

most people) to have money. 

Hans: The pleasantness of having money comes with a price, namely, the pain of those who don’t have money. 

Message [743] referenced by [2008SP:856]. Next Message by Astclair is [803]. 

Question 336 is 234 in 1997sp, 226 in 1997ut, 236 in 1998WI, 291 in 2002fa, 305 in 

2003fa, 367 in 2008fa, 382 in 2009fa, 412 in 2010fa, 398 in 2011fa, and 413 in 2012fa: 

Question 336 Why this detour over gold, why not measure value directly by labor-time? 

[938] Snowy: Value is socially necessary labor time which cannot be measured. You must 

have something that can be measured, therefore, gold took that role. 

Hans: This is correct as a nutshell formulation of the answer, but much more can be said. 

Message [938] referenced by [941]. Next Message by Snowy is [939]. 

[941] Dange: graded C weight 60% Detour over Gold. When value is measured by the 

social-necessary labor time, it is impossible to measure. You need something that represents 

that value so you can measure it. The detour over gold puts a measurement upon the value, 

which makes the gold a useful commodity. 


Hans: Gold does not get its usefulness from its role as measure of value. On the contrary, gold acquired its role of 

measure of value only because it was a useful commodity before this. 

Other than this, your answer is a reformulation of [938]. This affected your grade. 


Exam Question 338 is 235 in 1997sp, 237 in 1998WI, 247 in 1999SP, 270 in 2001fa, 307 

in 2003fa, 344 in 2004fa, 359 in 2007SP, 369 in 2008fa, 414 in 2010fa, 400 in 2011fa, 

and 415 in 2012fa: 

Exam Question 338 What is the price of a commodity? Say how it is defined, not how its 

magnitude is determined. 

[1342] Prairierose: The price is a kind of exchange-value. The exchange-value of a 

commodity is its ability to be exchanged for other commodities, while its price is its ability 

to be exchanged for money. 

Hans: Very good. This is exactly the answer I am looking for. 


Multiple Choice Question 339 is 345 in 2004fa: 

Multiple Choice Question 339 Money functions as a measure of value because: 

(a) the higher the price of a good the better usually its quality. 

(b) people derive their self-esteem and social standing from the amount of money they are 

making. 

(c) sellers denominate the prices of their goods in money. 

(d) it is not really something that money does but money is passive. 

From a Marxist point of view, two of these would be right. Which ones?. 

[1427] MK: (c) 

It is not money that renders commodities commensurable. Just the opposite. It is because 

all commodities, as values, are realized human labor, and thus commensurable, that their 

values can be measured by one and the same special commodity, and the latter be converted 

into the common measure of their values–into money. Money, as a measure of value, is 

the phenomenal form that must of necessity be assumed by that measure of value which is 

immanent in commodities, labor-time. 

Hans: Your explanation implies that (d) is the second box that should be checked. 


[1432] Bboarder: c and d Money seems very powerful and active because it is directly 

exchangeable for all commodities, but this “desirability” of money does not come from the 

money itself but from the need of the commodities to validate the labor they contain. 

Hans: This is a literal quote from [2004fa:448-2]. 


Question 342 is 236 in 1997sp, 228 in 1997ut, 238 in 1998WI, 248 in 1999SP, 259 in 

2000fa, 272 in 2001fa, 296 in 2002fa, 310 in 2003fa, 348 in 2004fa, 363 in 2007SP, 373 


Question 342 How is the value of money expressed?


[825] Zone: graded C question 342. The value of money is expressed through the exchange 

of other commodities with money. The money does not have an inherent value, but 

its value is derived from the commodities that are exchanged with the money. In an exchange, 

the buyer and seller agree that the value of the commodity that is being traded for 

the money has the same value or they would not trade. These type of transactions carry on 

trough out the market and eventually money is given its value, not by an individual transaction 

but by the market as a whole. Since money can be exchanged with all goods, it carries 

a value that no other commodity can replicate. 

Hans: Your use of the word “value” is very loose, it is difficult to say something intelligent about commodities 

without distinguishing use-value and exchange-value. You are describing an ordinary mainstream theory of money. 

Marx’s theory is quite different. See Robgodfellow’s [833] for a correction of your errors. 


[833] Robgodfell: graded A Money’s Illusion. . Zone said in [825]: “The value of money 

is expressed through the exchange of other commodities with money.” 

However, Marx specifically says that: “. . . the Expanded relative expression of value. . . has 

now become the specific relative form of value of the money commodity [Ehrbar, 220].” 

So the value of money, while actualized/realized in the exchange of commodities, is firstly 

expressed in the Expanded relative form in which all products are given their value as a 

relative expression of money commodity. 

i.e. 

x amounts iron 

y amounts cloth = q amount of Gold/money commodity. 

z amounts corn 

and the list continues for all possible commodities in relation to Gold/Money commodity. 

Marx explains: “A particular commodity only becomes money because all other commodities 

express their values in it. . . [Ehrbar, 211].” Even though to us in this form it seems 

it is money precisely because all other commodities express themselves in it. 

Zone [825] also said that: “The money does not have an inherent value. . . ” 

Marx however says, “The exchange process gives to the commodity which it has designated 

as money not its value but its specific form [Ehrbar, 206].” 

(Its specific form here should be understood as being either Gold/Silver -precious metal- 

Bullion or Paper -Fiat- Money) 

Furthermore in the footnote by Galiani [Ehrbar, 206] we are told that “Gold and Silver 

have value [use-values and value added from human labor] as metals before they are money.” 

And previously [Ehrbar, 205] we are told the “Silver and Gold. . . are no less a commodity 

than wine, oyl [sic], tobacco cloth or stuffs.” 

So value exists prior to the commodity that will eventually take the Expanded Relative 

form and then become the General/Universal Equivalent. 


Zone [825] also says: “Since money can be exchanged with all goods, it carries a value 

that no other commodity can replicate.” 

It however does carry a value that any other commodity could duplicate if it were to 

take the expanded relative form to the universal equivalent. This is what is described as 

the “Magic of Money,” that as soon as gold or silver is wrought from the earth it immediately 

represents human labor incarnate, and thus is capable of being exchanged with all 

other goods. But this isn’t inherent, it has gradually occurred over the exchange process of 

millennia, and these precious metals have become accepted as carriers of human labor value 

and thus exchangeable with quantitative amounts of human labor ensconced in man’s wares. 

Hans: Did you mean to say: “Even though to us in this form it seems all other commodities express themselves in 

it precisely because it is money?” 

When Marx speaks of the specific value form of money he does not mean gold etc. but the direct exchangeability, 

i.e. the power of money to buy things. 

Message [833] referenced by [825], [841], and [942]. Next Message by Robgodfell is [1211]. 

[841] Keltose: (graded B+) Money’s Illusion. I wanted to comment on Robgodfell’s 

answer [833]. I agree and liked the closing comment, “It however does carry a value that 

any other commodity could duplicate if it were to take the expanded relative form to the 

universal equivalent. This is what is described as the ‘Magic of Money’, that as soon as gold 

or silver is wrought from the earth it immediately represents human labor incarnate, and thus 

is capable of being exchanged with all other goods.” The value of money is expressed a lot of 

ways in our society, but primarily by what we are able to buy with it. This also is dependent 

on the value of the commodity and if you are not using money then some kind of exchange 

value. I think that Marx makes a good point when he says “The exchange process gives to the 

commodity which it has designated as money not its value but its specific form” 184:3/oo. 

Therefore, money is expressed by the value of commodities. If I have an expensive car, then 

the car (commodity) expresses that it cost a lot of money. 

My question is, (and answer), if obtaining horse manure were a process that involved 

extensive human labor, would it be exchangeable? Probably. 

Hans: The car shows what kinds of things you can buy with a certain amount of money, and in this way expresses 

the value of that money. 

If obtaining horse manure were a process that involved extensive human labor, then its price would be high. 

Perhaps so high that nobody ever wanted to use horse manure for anything, and therefore no horse manure would 

be produced. 



Question 343 Why do the commodity owers write the price on their price signs and not the 

labor-content of the commodity they are producing? 

[942] Bubba: graded A Price Tags. I don’t know if there is only one right answer for this 

question - I have some conjectures: 

First, it would be cumbersome. Labor content is in terms of socially necessary labor 

time - under that hypothetical labor-certificate system, I might state on the price tag that I 

worked three hours to make this commodity, but then I would need to also indicate how that 

compares to the average amount of time that everyone producing the same commodity needs


to be able to put it in terms of socially necessary labor time. A Gallup poll also doesn’t seem 

sufficient here to determine the socially necessary amount. Additionally, I probably used 

tools to make my commodity. The labor content of my commodity also includes the amount 

of time that it took to make my tools (whether or not I made them), and that’s even more 

effort to determine how much labor my commodity contains in terms of socially necessary 

labor time. 

Second, the real-world system of using prices actually works out much the same as directly 

displaying my commodity’s labor content would. Money itself represents labor (as 

Robgodfell stated in [833], “as soon as gold or silver is wrought from the earth it immediately 

represents human labor incarnate”). When no one spends their money on my commodity 

because it’s priced too high, that lets me know that my the guess-and-check method of 

displaying my socially necessary labor was wrong, and I have less (socially necessary) labor 

in the product than in the amount of money I asked for. It works out very much the same. 

Hans: You are right; the individual agent does not have to compute the socially necessary labor-time; society 

computes it for him. The price sign does not say that this commodity has a certain amount of labor. The price sign 

says: “if I get this much money I am willing to give you my commodity.” This is all the individual agent has to do 

to submit his commodity to the social necessary-labor computer, or to the social photographing process I described 

in [966]. 

Message [942] referenced by [1401], [1517], [1671], [2007SP:499], and [2007fa:591]. Next Message by Bubba is 

[1008]. 

[1401] Robgodfell: graded A Price Tags: The Human-Labor Calculator. Commodity 

owners write the money price for their products because it is representative of an equivalent 

of average human labor embodied in the production of the average product x. 

I.e. 1/2 hour of average human labor equals $2.75 

Hans: This is less than the minimum wage! The value generated in one hour, as opposed to the wage paid, is at 

least five times this much. 

Bubba in [942] wisely states that the parade of horribles that would be necessary to compute 

the human labor valued in one product would include the labor necessary for the tools 

that were used to produce the product for sale, the human labor that was required for that 

product, and then last but not least the commodity owner would have to compare that time 

to the average amount of time that it takes to produce the same product. 

This is an important point because only via the entirety of production for a certain type of 

product (all the shoes produced in a given time period) could one deduce the average time 

socially necessary to produce said individual product. 

The price tag of a product operates much in the same way as if the owner had in fact put 

labor content. 

How? 

Through consumers purchasing or refusing to purchase said product. 

If the product is purchased, then in fact the owner has adequately deduced the amount of 

labor held within his product. And if the product fails to sell, then the commodity owner 

knows that he must either raise or lower his price according to the “social photographing 

process” [966] embodied in the price tag. 


Hans: The tie-in between prices and labor content cannot come from the consumers: they don’t know how much 

labor is in the goods, they just buy what they think is the best thing to buy. 

It comes from the producers. If the market price is consistently above labor content, this will cause labor to be 

shifted from other branches of production into this particular branch, and the increased supply will lower the prices 

until they are proportional. 

Message [1401] referenced by [2007SP:499]. Next Message by Robgodfell is [1460]. 

[1439] Snickers: graded B+ When the commodity owner puts it price tag on a commodity 

it is telling everyone what the owner thinks the commodity is worth. This tag is saying that 

if you are willing to pay that marked price then the commodity will be given over. The price 

tag takes into account the labor content and other factors. The price that is asked for the 

commodity is not a function of a measure of value but more of the actual substance of value, 

or the quality of human labor placed into a commodity. The more quantity and quality of 

human labor the higher the price. So the price reflects the labor content, bills for the store 

and also what other companies are charging for the same product. The commodity owner 

has an automatic check for the price he places on his commodity: if the commodity doesn’t 

sell then this tells him that the price is too high and the labor content for the commodity is 

too little for the high price. 

Hans: It would be magic if the market price were to signal to the producer whether the price is too high for the 

labor content of the commodity. 

If the commodity doesn’t sell at a price which is in line with the capitalist’s cost, then this can mean two things: 

either this capitalist’s cost are too high, or too many such commodities are on the market. The capitalist does not 

(and cannot) know which of these alternatives is the case. But he knows that he either has to lower his cost or 

reduce production. 


[1517] Geo: graded A The commodity owners write the price on their signs and not the 

labor-content of the commodity they are producing for a few reasons. As Bubba stated in 

[942] writing the labor content on the sign would be “cumbersome” due to the complications 

of an individual owner determining exactly what the socially necessary labor time was. The 

socially necessary labor time is not calculated by the individual commodity owner but it is 

calculated by society. Also, the commodity owner does not write the labor content on the 

sign because his/her labor content may differ from that of another commodity owner. The 

price is a socially significant representation or notation of value of the commodities, and the 

price captures the labor content within it. The price is a better way for the commodity owner 

to communicate what he/she is selling his/her commodity for. 

As Hans states in the Annotations (221), “The labor which the producer puts into a commodity 

is entirely his or her private affair. However the price the commodity can fetch on 

the market is, due to the competition between producers, an indicator of this invisible laborcontent.” 


[1564] Gdubmoe: graded C The commodity owners write their price on their signs and 

not the labor-content of the commodity because the price is universal and accepted worldwide 

in terms of the gold-backing. The price has the amount of labor, the value of the 

resource, and other costs factored into the selling price. The labor-content might not be 

important in some cases in price determination. If a resource is extremely valuable and not 

much labor is needed for the commodity then the price would be incorrect and the capitalist 

would lose if he charged based on the labor-content.


Hans: Of course, if you don’t think that the labor theory of value holds, then you will not see any reason why the 

labor content should be written on the price tags. All study questions refer to Marx’s labor theory of value and have 

to purpose to understand this theory better. Perhaps I should have reformulated the question as: Is it an implication 

of the labor-theory of value that the commodity owners should write the labor content on the price tags instead of a 

dollar price? 

Final Grading Note by Hans: You seem to have large gaps in your understanding of Marx. 

Message [1564] referenced by [1811]. Next Message by Gdubmoe is [1931]. 

[1671] Synergy: graded B– A commodity owners price tag is what he is willing to accept 

to turn over his commodity. It does not necessarily reflect the labor or, socially-necessary 

labor, that has been put into it. If commodity owners were to price their items according 

to the labor value they would not be able to sell their item because of all the aspects of 

labor involved. Also, as Hans says in reply to [942], society determines the price at which a 

commodity will sell, not the individual. Therefore his value price tag would be much higher 

than the socially accepted price. 

Hans: If Marx’s labor theory of value is right, then the prices determined by labor content and the market prices 

should be close to each other. 


[1672] Keltose: graded B To begin, I open with Marx as he states, “Every owner knows 

that by giving price form (i.e., imagined gold form) to the value of his commodities he 

is nowhere near turning them into gold” [189:2–190]. Marx makes reference to gold and 

money during his argument, but one thing is certain that the owners write a price in relation 

to how much the good is worth. Now a good having worth and a good having value are two 

different things, and thus pricing them in gold is a standard way. But if a commodity “A” 

was easy to make and has a high use-value, and commodity “B” was difficult to make and 

has low use-value then one could argue that they could be worth the same amount. Because 

one product required more labor, and one has more use-value. However, one may be in 

higher demand and thus could ultimately play out the final price. 

The price tag tells the buyers that if they want this good then they have to pay such 

amount. Furthermore, no owner would sell their good for less than what they thought it was 

worth, unless the market value determined it lower. 

The seller also never divulges how much labor went into a product. In the end the seller 

is trying to create the largest profit they can. Dependent on how much labor went into the 

commodity. Hans states that there is a connection in this, however complicated. The market 

demand and the means of production will play a larger role in why the seller chose such a 

price. 

Hans: In mainstream economics, prices are determined by supply and demand, which is a kind of mixture between 

ease of production and use-value as you describe it. If this is the case, nobody would dream of tying to price the 

goods by labor content. 

Marx’s theory is different. He claims that the long-run equilibrium prices are determined by one factor only, 

namely, the labor content of the commodity. Question 343 assumes that this theory is true. Why then write the 

approximation on the price tag (money price) instead of the real thing (labor content)? 


[1682] Jimmie: graded A The reason the commodity owners write the price instead of 

labor-content is because it is unnecessary. The person selling the item is really just offering 

an exchange for a commodity in exchange for a general equivalent, which is cash. The price 

just states the terms of exchange that the commodity owner will accept. 


Hans: Yes! Compared to the other answers I have been reading this is a breath of fresh air. 

Message [1682] referenced by [1544], [2007SP:499], [2007SP:1044], [2007SP:1147], and [2010fa:1037]. Next 

Message by Jimmie is [1691]. 

[1702] Camhol: Commodity owners use price instead of labor content because it would 

be way too difficult to display all of the labor content of their commodity. Using laborcontent’s 

money equivalency allows the producer to summarize all its components together 

in a universal medium. 

Hans: How can money solve the problem which you just said is so difficult? 

By the way, your in-class answer had an interesting thought: 

Also with every display of labor-content there would be a possibility of disputes between 

the various owners on the amounts of labor-content. This also leads to a problem of having 

competitors have a labor “blueprint” which then makes competition more fierce by allowing 

the competitiors to see where they can improve. 


[1739] Sonja: graded A– Price tags are displayed on a commodity instead of labor time 

because the buyer of a commodity does not need to know the labor time necessary to produce 

that commodity. The necessary labor time is already computed by society and is reflected 

in the money price of that commodity. Displaying labor time would be hard since one 

would have to show the necessary labor that went into making that commodity, in addition 

to showing labor time necessary to produce tools which made that commodity, etc. All of 

these calculations are already done by society and reflect labor time in money form. 

Hans: Your in-class answer was completely different. You wrote: 

“Commodity owners write the price on their signs instead of labor content because price signifies 

a commodity’s exchangeability with money which the commodity owners are after. If 

they were to show labor content on the sign, it would speak of a commodity’s value but not its 

price.” 

Was this wrong? How did you change your mind about this issue so thoroughly that you did not mention any of 

this in your resubmission? I would have liked it better had you not entirely abandoned what you wrote in class. 


[1811] Tink: graded D Commodity owners write the price of the commodity on their 

price signs and not the labor-content because the labor content is not the only determinant 

of a commodity’s price. The cost of production includes labor and the means or tools used 

in production as well. This cost will be reflected in the designated price of an item. Thus it 

would be incomplete for a commodity owner to write the labor-content on their signs, this is 

only part of the “price.” 

Hans: Your answer is similar to [1564] in the archives which has my notes attached that it is wrong. The labortheory 

of value, according to which prices are determined by labor content, is not the same as saying that prices are 

determined by labor costs. My [1124] and [1387] address this issue. 


350 is 350 in 2007SP, 935 in 2008SP, 935 in 2008fa, 935 in 2009fa, 935 in 2010fa, 350 in 

2011fa, and 350 in 2012fa: 

350 Marx and the Environment 

[1105] Geo: ANGER: Latest Oil News. Not to take away from the pointless women 

president discussion or anything but has anyone read the latest Profit reports on the leading 

oil companies. If you haven’t, then look it up, it is fascinating. Exxon Mobile posted record


revenues of over $100 billion and and record company profits. BP and Shell are not far 

behind. I heard a quote from the the CEO of Exxon yesterday saying “the markets have 

worked,” speaking of the latest increases and now decreases (although I have not seen much 

‘decrease’) in oil prices. I have no respectable words for oil companies or for the markets 

that have so blatantly failed. I am sure not a Marxist but if this is capitalism I want out! This 

is absolutely ridiculous. How can we as consumers still stand for this? We just stand back 

and watch the ‘markets work’ taking no thought into what is behind the ‘free market’ or our 

prices. If nobody does anything, nothing will happen. I sure hope these reports anger and 

open the eyes of many, including ourselves. 

Geo 

Message [1105] referenced by [1106], [1114], and [1115]. Next Message by Geo is [1143]. 

[1106] MarxSchmarx: ANGER: Latest Oil News. Re: [1105]: I believe that there are 

a few things that everyone should take into consideration before judging the oil companies. 

While gross revenue for Exxon was right around the $100 billion mark, their profit were 

closer to $10 billion. If my calculations serve me correct, Exxon’s profit margin is around 

10%. When put into perspective with high technology companies or pharmaceutical companies, 

their profit margin is nothing to complain about. These are companies that we also use 

daily, and are dependent upon for social function. 

There was a minimal amount of public outcry in the mid to late 90’s when high tech 

companies were posting outrageous profit reports. People just decided to take advantage 

of a good thing and invested in these companies. Even when these companies didn’t show 

profits, people invested. Amazon.com, at one time, was valued at $9 billion dollars before 

the company had a profitable quarter. There was no complaining, those numbers resulted in 

investment. 

In an industry where easy entry is not possible because of a large investment necessary 

to be a factor in that industry, the oil companies are taking a large risk with the product that 

they supply. The capital necessary to refine oil is very expensive. The capitalist who takes 

the risk involved with entering this industry should be rewarded. 

Yes, it is may be considered “bad” for the end user of the product when a rise in input 

prices leads to a rise the price of the final product. And yes, we are forced (more or less) 

to take the price of gasoline as it fluctuates. But, to express that it is unfair for a company 

to turn a profit when the market “gives” them the opportunity is unfair from an economic 

standpoint. 

Message [1106] referenced by [1108] and [1113]. Next Message by MarxSchmarx is [1109]. 

[1108] McDugall: Re: ANGER: Latest Oil News. Re: [1106]: Response to MarxSchmarx 

The main reason people complain so much is that oil has become a necessity. There 

is little competition in the oil industry when you look at see that such a small fraction of 

oil companies own so much. During the 1990’s the computer industry was in a growth 

period and was not yet at maturity. Since then consolidation has occurred to the point where 

competition is still fierce but the consumers still win out by lower cost products. The oil 

industry has been mature for some time now, however, there is not as much competition 


because people rely on oil so much and will pay almost anything. There is a very stark 

difference between oil and computers. The oil companies are clearly abusing the consumer. 

Secondly, there is so much media attention because the Bush Administration does not 

have a transparent policy in place regarding all the meetings that take place with oil companies. 

If these meetings were public domain I’m sure there would be less attention so long as 

the meetings did not cover how to exploit consumers. 

And seriously consider the whole impact oil companies have on the overall economy. 

Do not try to rationalize everything in comparison to other industries, go back over the oil 

industries past and make companies. You cannot compare apples and oranges. 

And Finally, stop being a republican apologist. 

Message [1108] referenced by [1109]. Next Message by McDugall is [1110]. 

[1113] Pete: Re: ANGER: Latest Oil News. Re: [1106]: I agree with MarxSchmarx 

in the fact that we must look at situations from an economic point of view, since we are in 

an economic class. Don’t get your feeling hurt over a little spilled oil. Thats what is cool 

about our country we can disagree without fearing reprisal. Thats what is cool about this 

class...open minded thinkers. 


[1114] Gopher: ANGER: Latest Oil News. RE: [1105]: when you have an oil business 

man as president then oil companies will continue to have huge profits. 

[1115] Picard: ANGER: Latest Oil News. Re: [1105]: I think that sometimes we 

americans can be a little harsh on the oil companies. Today it is true that they have record 

profits but many american oil companies have struggled in the past. We should be happy 

they now have money to invest into research and construction of more oil refineries ect.. and 

if they don’t use their profits in those ways then I would start to critisize them harshly. 

I agree with MarxSchmarx when he says that the oil companies should be rewarded for 

their high risk investments. In Europe they are paying quite a lot more than we do for gas 

so I would say that we are still enjoying low prices. The problem here is the United States’ 

dependence on oil. More tax dollars should be used in alternative fuel research such as cold 

fusion and hydrogen. 

Too bad many experts in those fields are dying such as Dr. Eugene Mallove whom many 

believe to have been assasinated because of his research. 

(Maybe I need to not listen to the Art Bell show so often). 

Message [1115] referenced by [1116] and [1119]. Next Message by Picard is [1255]. 

[1116] McDugall: Re: ANGER: Latest Oil News. Re: [1115]: One thing you should 

take note about European gas prices is that they are heavily taxed. The Europeans pay similar 

rates for raw materials and currently pay less due to the higher valuation of the Euro. The 

reason their citizens pay more for gas are the taxes. The taxes support social programs and 

environmental programs. However, our taxes support highway construction and little goes 

to public transportation or other alternative methods of travel. 

Here are some numbers:


France 5.54 per gallon 5.54 x .75 (current tax rate in france) = 4.155 ; 5.54 -4.155 = 1.385 

per gallon without tax 

US 2.75 per gallon 2.75 x .17 ( maximum tax on gas in us) = . 4675; 2.75-.4675 = 2.2825 

without tax 

Just some numbers for thought, rough numbers but they show some interesting results. 

http://goeurope.about.com/od/transportation/a/gas prices.htm 

http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/global gasprices/ 


[1119] Aaron: Re: ANGER: Latest Oil News. RE: [1115]: I don’t think that those 

record profits are going to be used toward research, but I agree that they will use them for 

more refineries. And with these record gas prices because of the natural disasters the report 

of record profits proves that the oil industry has the nation on a leash. Although they are just 

rumors many people believe that other forms of energy have been available for sometime 

however the oil companies have been using some of those profits to keep these technologies 

under wraps. And as gas prices have fallen a little bit diesel continues to be sold at over 

$3. The problem is that diesel is this country’s life blood, the majority of the shipping in 

this country is transported on truck or train which uses diesel. The report of record profits is 

outrageous. 


[1120] McDugall: Re: ANGER: Latest Oil News. Re: [1119]: I’d have to agree the 

oil companies will use little if any of these profits to expand operations and or production. 

The government just gave out some more corporate welfare to spur growth and expansion 

because they claimed the oil companies don’t have enough money. And after careful consideration, 

why would the oil companies want to invest their money into these expansions in the 

short term when they are making record profits? It seems they have found a nice equilibrium 

currently and will probably remain their until the customers start a backlash. 

Just our tax dollars being given away to the people who need it least. 


[1123] TimJim: Oil prices in US. To be quite honest with you, I am not fond of the 

current oil trends in the US. Every year when looking in the Fortune 500 companies, Exxon 

is one of the top five. I figure that they might be able to cut America a break (since they 

certainly are earning enough money), but they didn’t get to be that big by being price savvy 

to their consumers. I must admit I don’t know much about the oil pricing, but I do believe 

there is more to it than what the general public is allowed to know. 

On the contrast I am afraid that since oil has become such a necessity, that if the oil 

companies kept raising prices until the market was in equilibrium, the prices would soar 

quite higher. I do believe that we still are somewhat getting a bargain on the gas that is for 

sale currently. I believe that the only way to fix oil prices from increasing permanetly is to 

not only come up with a better public transportation, but to also use public transportation 

and not be so reliant on our automobiles. 



[1154] Tink: love the oil. Here is the thing: we don’t need to be so dependant on oil. 

There is no need for a “crisis”. We have the capability and the technology to do just fine 

without our SUV’s and houseboats. The technology does exist for us to have cars that do not 

rely on oil and gas, but until we start refusing to pay the outragous gas prices and demand 

an alternative, what incentive does anybody have to start producing it? None, unless they 

are rich philanthropists. So prices will likely remain high, we will probably exhaust some 

rescources, and then the demand will finally be there for either an alternative, or the drilling 

in our back yards. I wouldn’t be surpised to see oil towers behind our houses before I see 

people buying alternatively fueled vehicles. We like our stuff. So we’ll suffer for it. Enjoy. 


[1156] Tesa: Don’t we love oil? In reply to Tinks statement [1154] on oil. I agree that the 

technology is out there. I believe Iceland effectivly uses alternate forms of energy. But that 

is dependent on their very particular situation ecologicly. A conversion to alternate transport 

evergy would be ideal and I believe it is eminent, though perhaps not in the near future. The 

problem is we are extreemly dependent on plastics formed from oil. Our garbage can, our 

printers and keyboards, countless things right down to the sneakers we wear. There is simply 

not a cheaper, or diverse material to replace it. 


[1159] MK: RE– love the oil. Tink– 

While we may have other fuel sources (as we have all seen the car that runs on garbage 

etc.), it is not fair to say that they are readily available, or even feasible. The hybrid vechicles, 

promising better gas mileage, run well into twenty thousand dollars. And not many can 

manage to create a garbage powered vechicle. 

What you have here is not so much persons dependent upon fuel, but persons trapped by 

their personal economic situation. 

It may be true also that one can choose public transit opposed to fueling their vechicle– 

but again, how feasible is this? 

For example, on any given day I run 4 children to school, I also take myself to the trax 

stop in order to get to campus. I inevitably have a sick child once a week that requires a 

medical appointment as well as prescription medication. I shop for a family of 7, six children 

and myself, and my health requires that I maintain 3 appointments a week at Huntsman. It 

would be unrealistic for me and my family to rely on public transit. It is also unrealistic that 

I purchase a twenty thousand dollar vechicle. 

You mention SUV’s and houseboats– but really, are these vechicles the problem? While 

it may be irresponsible to drive an SUV in the midst of a fuel crisis– it is not the SUV’s or 

their passengers that create the problem. (And in the way of SUV’s and houseboats– if you 

are driving these types of vechicles you can likely afford to fill them). When we speak of a 

fuel crisis- it really affects the poor– the persons that cannot afford to heat their homes, nor 

fill their gas tanks. And when we make the choice to drive, it is often out of necessity. The 

answer cannot be for persons that already struggle be required to struggle more in order to 

send a message. 

Next Message by MK is [1308].


[1170] Thelonius: ANGER: Latest Oil News-Please Read. On Oil- 

I doubt any of you are yet entertaining this forum specific to Oil and its many faces, but 

too many opinions, many very educated, have been submitted without too much foresight. 

If we are discussing economics then oil couldn’t be a more fittting topic to integrate the 

many faces an economy wears and will wear. If we do our homework we will discover a 

few...shall we say heartstopping, realities about oil. These points of argument make oil corporations 

and energy policy writers a bit more responsible. Oil isn’t really oil. Oil isn’t just 

the lubricant put into your crankcase, and what keeps your door hinges from squeaking. In 

fact Oil is petrol-products. Your key board, the fertilizer in your bell pepper, rice, wheat, 

corn and potato, synthetic clothing, what’s in your gas-tank and 70% of the materials your 

car is comprised of. Oil is your food, and what gets your food to you. Oil is the aggregate 

of our very lives. According to projections, and if we do our homework...there is no argument 

(I got my information from Dan Johnson, regional VP for Texaco/Chevron), we have 

40 years of available oil...once again...40 years, no, that’s right 40 years...I repeat just to 

annoy and nail the coffin...Forty Years (40). Plastics/and transportation are the primary uses 

of petroleum, but we are now agriculturally dependant upon petro-chemical fertilizers... I 

don’t mind challenging anybody on this issue... This is a university, this is an economics 

class. Anybody who is sympathizing with policies, which promote oil waste (war, SUV, 

Hummer manufacturing, auto-dependent communities, McDonalds) is not really very savvy 

to the state of affairs with oil. Anybody driving an SUV or even a large sedan, if not simply 

a car...doesn’t not really care a whit for progeny..aka, has no authentic family values. If 

anybody takes the time to read a few of my points on the issue, I will undoubtably receive a 

response discussing clean energy, alternative fuels for transportation such as fuel cells, etc... 

Undiscovered innovation is a shoddy argument that one can’t eat in a real working economy, 

and has no leverage against the invaluable utility of plastics (no oil, no plastic). Our policies 

on Oil are unforgivable. Our lack of education on the role of oil is unforgivable. According 

to the statistics, our dependence on and waste of petroleum is fundementally going to 

change the world in the next 50 years in ways that are unprecedented, and unimaginable, 

but completely foreseeable. In terms of oil and what future may come, we are completely 

accountable...remember friends...Natural Resources are Finite, oil most of all. We have to 

get wise to this, it will be our generation that will begin to see the results of oil gluttony. 

Quoting Picard ¡econ-5080@marx.econ.utah.edu¿: 

I think that sometimes we americans can be a little harsh on the oil companies. 

Today it is true that they have record profits but many american oil 

companies have struggled in the past. ... 

Message [1170] referenced by [1173] and [1177]. Next Message by Thelonius is [1171]. 

[1173] Ernesto: ANGER: Latest Oil News-Please Read Re: [1170]: So what makes 

MR. Chevron/Texaco the expert? I agree with your underlying assumptions, however, 40 

years is a little premature according to most scientists. Go easy on the doom’s day prophecies. 

Message [1173] referenced by [1174]. Next Message by Ernesto is [1175]. 

[1174] Thelonius: Re: ANGER: Latest Oil News-Please Read Re: [1173]: Dan Johnson 

is the very mouth of the beast itself, that’s why he’s the expert. Nobody knows about 


oil discovery and production more than the Oil Corps themself, and who will argue against 

Texaco/Chevron being as much in the kn ow as anybody? And as far as going easy on the 

dooms day prophesies...You aren’t very well versed on current global environmental issues. 

You know, little deals like ohh...exponential population growth, for instance. The human 

population is at a 1.3% per year increase. It reached exponential increase at 1.09%. The 

result is over 220,000 new individuals to house, feed, and transport each day. That’s repopulating 

the whole wasatch front in 3.5-4 days? 40 years is too premature? OK howabout 60 

years, does that change the situation in relationship to population growth? I want to hear an 

argument. 

So what makes MR. Chevron/Texaco the expert? I agree with your underlying 

assumptions, however, 40 years is a little premature according to most 

scientists. Go easy on the doom’s day prophecies. 

Message [1174] referenced by [1176]. Next Message by Thelonius is [1178]. 

[1176] Ernesto: Re: ANGER: Latest Oil News-Please Read Re: [1174]: If 1.09% 

growth is exponential, wouldn’t we all be rich off a basic savings account yielding 2% interest? 

Message [1176] referenced by [1178] and [1183]. Next Message by Ernesto is [1184]. 

[1177] MarxSchmarx: ANGER: Latest Oil News-Please Read Re: [1170]: Thelonius, 

Those numbers are astonishing. I have no problem accepting them and their effect on the 

welfare of the world. We appear to have quite a large problem on our hands and, according 

to you, there appears to be no way out. From your original post: “Undiscovered innovation 

is a shoddy argument...” If we cannot rely upon new technologies in production, my question 

to you is, what do you feel the solution is? If we are in such dire straits, I can see no other 

solution than undiscovered innovation. Please let us know how you propose, if we cannot 

advance our knowledge, what we should do. 

I am not trying to pick a fight, or make a stand. I genuinely would like to hear the solution 

you think is feasible, before you shoot down other’s solutions for being unrealistic. 


[1178] Thelonius: Re: ANGER: Latest Oil News-Please Read Re: [1176]: We would 

if we all had 6.3 Billion dollars in our savings account...what’s your point? 


[1179] Thelonius: Re: ANGER: Latest Oil News-Please Read Re: [1177]: Exactly, 

Assuming that these figures are acurate and that the forecast for energy and petroleum 

based products is based on some degree of fact...The question is not how do we pretend 

that these forces are not real. The question is how do we soften the transition from an 

oil based economy to an agrarian, or at least not collapsing one. I would argue that oil 

consumption needs to be curbed to more efficient use. The price of gasoline at the pump 

as you probably already know, does not by even close means, reflect the actual cost...and 

that has no bearing on environmental externalities. The price per barrel, when US military 

presence in the Middle East(not Iraq, that’s a different story all together) is factored in, 

would bring the cost to 100+ dollars per barrel. I’ve seen an estimate at $116, and i’ve seen 

an estimate at $124. That’s substantially higher than what it is now, around $60. Curbing 

consumption from an economic perspective, means you raise the price of oil to reflect its


actual cost. No more SUV’s to say the least. Legislation governing carbon emissions is a 

great concept. Put a quota on the amount of carbon being released per vehicle. innovation 

will most likely occur, but curbing consumption will buffer the transition between oil based 

transportation methods, and more realistic long term ones. We simply cannot discount the 

value of plastics, and the less oil the hubris filled F350, or Hummer driver consumes, the 

longer we can use plastics. To accurately answer your question of what do we do, well, we 

start by doing something. We’re already discussing it, so next we start recognizing the value 

of the resource (commodity), and stop wasting it. We stop allowing institutionalized waste. 

If it’s a frightening topic, that means you’re awake. If it’s not frightening, you must be fast 

asleep. What do you think? 


[1181] MarxSchmarx: Re: ANGER: Latest Oil News-Please Read Re: [1179]: Thelonius, 

I think that we may be on the same page as far as a solution goes. This nation’s 

dependency on oil is staggering, and has reached further than most realize. 

I also believe that trying to stretch the current supply will accomplish many many things. 

First, it will force the producers of product to become more efficient in production. Second, 

it will encourage innovation in production. It is not conceivable to me that we will have 

a widely-accepted alternative fuel for automobiles within five years. However, if there are 

gentle, but escalating, restrictions put into place to help ween the consumer from violating 

our resources, I believe that society will learn to accept an alternative way of doing things. 

Like I hinted towards in my first point, I believe that undiscovered innovation will have a 

greater effect in finding a solution for our oil dependency. It is impractical to say that there 

won’t be a solution that may arise from the unknown. The future is a mystery, and there may 

be a mysterious solution that comes from it. Until then, I am all in favor of curbing our oil 

habit by indirect usage restrictions. 

Message [1181] referenced by [1189] and [1190]. Next Message by MarxSchmarx is [1265]. 

[1183] McDugall: Re: ANGER: Latest Oil News-Please Read Re: [1176]: Ernesto 

there is HUGE difference. Lets say you have 10k is a savings account, 1.09% interest doesn’t 

amount to much. But if you have 5.9 billion (somewhere around this number) people in the 

world, 1.09% is monstrous. 

10,000 *1.00109 = 10,010.9 

5,900,000,000 * 1.00109 = 5,906,431,000 THAT IS A HUGE INCREASE 


[1184] Ernesto: Re: ANGER: Latest Oil News-Please Read Re: [1183]: You are all 

missing the point. EXPONENTIAL GROWTH was the term used. 1 or 2% growth fails to 

constitute EXPONENTIAL GROWTH. 


[1187] McDugall: Re: ANGER: Latest Oil News-Please Read Re: [1184]: FYI TO 

ALL you may want to remove the reply message, Hans mentioned he will deduct points for 

not removing the text. Secondly, 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential growth 

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=exponential growth 


just a FYI 

Message [1187] referenced by [1191] and [1194]. Next Message by McDugall is [1370]. 

[1189] Ernesto: Re: ANGER: Latest Oil News-Please Read Re: [1181]: I agree with 

what is being said, however, I don’t know if our society is willing to stomach the externalities 

of such policy measures. Public Policy is a prisoner of the market. Any effects of policy 

changes on the market place will manifest in unemployment and recession. Our elected 

leaders would like to keep their jobs and will avoid policies that would inevitably end their 

careers as politicians. Unless you have something else to fill the void. I don’t know if we 

are strong enough to absorb the shocks that would surely follow. This prison like dilemma 

is what has prevented such drastic policy changes long ago. 


[1190] Thelonius: Re: ANGER: Latest Oil News-Please Read Re: [1181]: True, the 

old saying....“Neccesity is has always been the mother of invention”, i’d rather do the inventing 

in more comfortable circumstances, by taking the bus, buying local organic agriculture, 

and promoting mass transit. Here is where our generation of americans stepps up, while the 

going is still really good. Those in power today are not concerned about us, they simply 

aren’t, their fiscal policies elaborate on that statement. This is where we asert ourselves. 


[1193] Thelonius: Re: ANGER: Latest Oil News-Please Read Re: [1189]: It is a 

question of whether we accept shorter term, smaller scale recession, or bag the whole sane 

concept and allow major unprecedented recession over the long term to inevitably occur. 


[1194] Ernesto: Re: ANGER: Latest Oil News-Please Read Re: [1187]: Thank you for 

the links, they illustrate my point effectively. On the graph look at the exponential growth 

curve in comparison to the others. 1.09% will give you consistent growth but not exponential 

growth. 


[1211] Robgodfell: Re: [1184] Exponential Growth is Proportional. 

You are all missing the point. EXPONENTIAL GROWTH was the term 

used. 1 or 2% growth fails to constitute EXPONENTIAL GROWTH. 

I hate to split hairs on such a trivial discussion but exponential growth is growth that 

occurs proportionately to the growing population. 1 or 2% can in fact consitute exponential 

growth. (size is irrelevant only constancy at proportion to population). 

For further information try 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exponential growth 


[1496] Overlord: President Bush and Iraq. Re: [1492]: First take a look at why we are 

really in Iraq. We were given excuses like, Suddam and weapons of mass destruction, but 

in my mind the real reason we are there is to secure our interest in OIL. We can not do that 

until the new democracy is in place and functional. Now Suddam would have made this a 

problem, but he is gone now. Even with him out of the way, it will take many more years for 

this goal to be achieved.


The war on terrorism is really a war to keep us saturated in Crude. Iraq is third on the 

list for proven Crude reserves. I ask the question, Why are we really there? There are many 

more countries out there that we could focus on and “Make” them adopt our ways. None of 

them have something we want. I will be the first to admit I may not be right. In my mind it 

makes perfect sense. 

The Troops. They have to follow their leader come hell or high water. I have many friends 

that are involved in Iraq and some of them may die. They all want to come home but they 

have agreed to follow orders. As much as I want them to return, they agreed to this in the 

first place. It is their job. 

The President. I didn’t support him then and will never support him. He has made decisions 

in his term that have caused and will continue to cause the deaths of many American 

citizens. Not only in Iraq but in our every day lives. I know he is not the only one who is 

responsible for making these decisions but he is responsible for those that are involved with 

making these decisions. 

Iraq. How many Americans had to die to create the nation we now love? How many 

years did battle rage on to create this nation we now love? Iraq is not a smash and grab job. 

It is going to take countless lives and many more years to create a nation that “WE” feel 

comfortable leaving to its own devices. As I stated above we are not there to fight terrorism. 

We are there for other reasons. We are in Afghanistan fighting terrorism, but you don’t hear 

about that on the news so who cares about those troops right? 

So now I am really pissed off. I hate the way the American public blindly follows what 

our leaders say. If anyone has worked in a corporate environment you know how much bull 

shit goes on there. Now multiply that by one million and you now have the amount of bull 

shit our leaders feed us. It is not so much that they are lying to us, but they sure as hell leave 

a lot out. They also like to give us their version of the truth. 

Message [1496] referenced by [1497]. Next Message by Overlord is [1593]. 

Exam Question 353 is 322 in 2003fa, 360 in 2004fa, 375 in 2007SP, 386 in 2008fa, 431 


Exam Question 353 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? 

[1376] Dange: graded B The relative form of value is influenced by supply and demand. 

This can seem like a flaw because the price can be altered which has nothing to do with the 

value of the commodity. The price of the commodity doesn’t necessarily reflect its value. 

This isn’t a flaw but is actually necessary in order to produce what is needed (p215). 

If the price of wheat goes up, and the socially necessary labor time remains constant to 

produce the commodity, the price therefore does not reflect the magnitude of the wheat’s 

value. However, the price is the form of its value. 

Hans: This is one example. 

Message [1376] referenced by [1379], [1384], and [2012fa:1108]. Next Message by Dange is [1380]. 

[1379] Hans: Dange [1376] correctly identified one of the “seeming flaws” of money 

as measure of value: that prices can deviate from values. Marx says that such deviations 


are necessary to induce the private producers to produce what is needed. If the price of a 

commodity rises above its value because of high demand for this commodity, then producers 

are motivated to produce more, thus satisfying this higher demand. 

The other “seeming flaw” of money (under the gold standard) is that the value of a gold 

coin declines as technology in general and therefore also the efficiency of gold mining improves. 

One might think that something whose value is itself variable is not a good measuring 

stick for value. But the fact is that technology also improves in other areas. If a monetary 

unit were to represent a fixed value, then all prices would have to decline over time. But since 

the value incorporated in a gold coin declines as well, prices are more constant, which is a 

good thing. 

This is an exam question because I thought these two points were important for you to 

understand. A minimal acceptable answer on the exam would be: 

The two flaws are (a) prices can deviate from value, and (b) the value of a 

gold coin varies with technology. 


[1384] Pisciphiliac: graded B– As Dange stated in [1376], one of the two aspects is that 

the “relative-value is influenced by supply and demand.” 

The second of the two aspects would be that a proportional increase of all commodities, 

including the money commodity. 

Hans: You didn’t finish your sentence. 


[1385] Parmenio: graded B– 1)Inflation 

2)supply and Demand 

Hans: The answers to the designated exam questions should be short and to the point, but not that short. 



2011fa, 449 in 2012fa, and 363 in Answer: 

Question 363 What does Marx mean when he says: one must consider the circulation process 

of money from its form side? 

[954] Daleman: graded A– By considering the circulation of money from its form side 

Marx hopes to bring to light which motivations and behaviors provoke and actions that keep 

an economic society going. Marx further discourages the consideration of surface activites 

from which exchanges are derived. It should also be understood that although Marx refers 

to commodity exchanges as “metamorphoses” or “form changes” there is no actual change 

to the forms themselves. 

Hans: One of the things necessary to keep the economy going is the social metabolism, the transfer of goods 

from the producers to the consumers. In order to understand the social relations and actions on the surface of the 

economy which keep this metabolism going, one must consider the sales and purchases from their form side. You 

said why it is important to look at these transactions from their form side, but you did not explain what it means to 

look at it from the form side. I tried to supply this missing link in [996]. 

Next Message by Daleman is [964].


[965] Keltose: graded A– I think what Marx is trying to investigate is that change that a 

commodity has when it is no longer in the market. The process starts when money is used 

to make a commodity and then money is used to buy the commodity. Once the commodity 

is bought and serving its purpose, it is now in the consumption arena. Marx states, “...every 

change of form in a commodity results from the exchange of two commodities, namely an 

ordinary commodity and the money commodity” [199:1]. Marx claims that this metamorphosis 

of commodities is what “mediates” [198:3/o] the social metabolism. Money plays an 

important role here because it is the ultimate product. Marx lays out this role when he states, 

“This ultimate product of commodity circulation is the first form of appearance of capital” 

[247:2]. 

Hans: In your description, money has a too great role. If you look at the social metabolism from its form side, 

things start and end with commodities, and money is only an intermediary. In capitalism, this role of money has 

been changed: now money is the starting point and end point, and commodities are the intermediaries. You are 

already describing this latter situation, in which money has usurped a role which does not follow from the logic of 

commodity circulation. 


[996] Hans: A different way of looking at sales and purchases. The obvious and 

straightforward way of looking at sales and purchases is to trace the movement of the material 

things through these transactions. The goods migrate from producers to consumers, 

where they are taken out of circulation and consumed. Marx calls this process the “social 

metabolism.” Every society must have a process by which the products are transferred from 

producers to consumers. 

If one wants to understand how this transfer is accomplished in a commodity society, 

one has to look at these same sales and purchases “from the form side.” If someone sells a 

commodity and receives money for it, then the material point of view, which I just described, 

says that his commodity is now in the hands of someone else, and he holds money instead 

of his original commodity. If you look at it from the form side, he still holds his original 

commodity, but the form of the commodity has changed: instead of being in its use-value 

form, to be more precise in the form of a use-value which the commodity owner does not 

wish to consume, this commodity is now in its value form. Since the money which the seller 

of the commodity receives is still his original commodity, but in a different form, Marx calls 

the sale a form change, or metamorphosis, of the commodity. 

And when the agent uses this money to buy a different use-value, then again this different 

use-value should still be considered the same commodity, but it underwent a second change 

in form, now again a use-value form, but with the important difference that this time the 

use-value is something that buyer does want to consume. 

One of the reasons why one should look at sales and purchases in this way instead of 

considering them to be exchanges of two things, money and commodity, is described in 

[2004fa:247]. 

Message [996] referenced by [Answer:18], [954], and [2010fa:524]. Next Message by Hans is [1001]. 

[1397] DarkKnight: graded A The form side of circulation. When Marx talks about 

considering the circulation of money from its form side, he is asking us to go beyond the 

social metabolism, or exchange taking place on the surface of the economy, and instead see 

what happens from the producer’s point of view. The exchange taking place on the surface 


of the economy has the following sequence: a producer brings his commodity to the market, 

he sells it for money, then purchases another commodity. Marx concisely describes this as 

C-M-C. The producer now owns a commodity with a use-value that he desires instead of the 

commodity that he created, which only had exchange-value for him. 

Now consider this interaction from the form side: the producer creates a commodity for 

the sole purpose of exchange. It is endowed with a particular value that stems from the labor 

the producer put into its production. This value will remain with the producer throughout 

the exchanges that takes place, but will change its form. First it changes to the money 

form which the producer now holds in lieu of his commodity. Then it changes again into a 

commodity that the producer (now a buyer as seen on the surface) wishes to consume. Thus, 

he retains the value that created by producing his original commodity. 

Message [1397] referenced by [2010fa:524]. Next Message by DarkKnight is [1398]. 

[1719] Jingle: graded B+ When you con- (As Submitted:) When you consider 

sider the circulation of money from its form the circulation of money from its form side 

marx talks about social metabolism. So- 

side Marx talks about the social relations 

and interactions mediating the social mecial 

metabolism is the transfer of goods 

tabolism. Social metabolism is the transfer 

of goods from producer to consumer. from producer to consumer. When you look 

When you look at sales and purchases from 

the side of its material content, if some- 

at sales and purchases from its form side 

one sells a commodity and gets money for someone will sell a commodity and gets 

money for that comodity, now his commod- 

that comodity, then his commodity is in the ity is in the hands of someone else, and he 

now holds the money and has his commod- 

hands of someone else, and he now holds ity. now when its in the form side he still 

the money and no longer has his commod- holds his original commodity, but the form 

ity. Now when you look at it from the form 

side he still holds his original commodity, 

but the form of the commodity has changed. 

Hans: I had to extensively edit your text to make it right. 

of the commodity has changed. 


Question 364 is 330 in 2003fa, 370 in 2004fa, 386 in 2007SP, 397 in 2008SP, 398 in 


Question 364 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? 

[950] Iblindone: graded A The naive mistake. The naive mistake that is commonly 

made when looking at market transactions is that they are thought of as an exchange, as 

when bartering. A barter is an exchange of two commodities, or use-value for use-value. 

This is not the way we want to look at this transaction. We are wanting to look at the sale 

and purchase of a commodity instead. In the sale or purchase of a commodity it switches 

forms, from a use-value to a value (money), this process is also known as a “metamorphosis”


or “form change.” Gold would not be considered a commodity in this transaction, but as 

money. 

Hans: Your last sentence should read: “Gold would not be considered a different commodity from the commodity 

sold, but merely as a different form (value-form instead of use-value form) of that commodity.” 


[1425] Bboarder: The definition of metamorphosis is the passing through different forms, 

from one form to another. The mistake is when equating the a money commodity to another 

commodity as though they were both ordinary commodities. “the seller hands over C in 

exchange for the salesprice M. Despite this irrefutable fact, the seller will better understand 

what she is doing if she thinks of this transaction as follows: After the sale, she still has 

the same commodity C in her hands, but this C has changed from its use-value form into its 

money form.” 

Hans: This is a literal quote from [2004fa:247], without attribution. This exam was a closed-book exam, which I 

gave you permission to take on line, unsupervised, from your home. 

Even if this is not an exam, direct quotes like the above in any answer need proper attribution. Just putting 

quotation marks around them is not sufficient. I consider this improper conduct and will take the necessary steps. 

In general, using your own words is always better than quoting something from the archives, for two reasons: 

(1) perhaps someone browsing in the archives will understand it better from your original formulation than from 

the other places. (2) It is impossible for me to know whether you understand what you are saying if you just recite 

it literally back to me from some other source. 

Final Grading Note by Hans: Why do you find it necessary to use literal quotes from previous answers in your 

own answers? You did this not only here and in [1428], [1430], and [1432], but also in the exam resubmission [850] 

for the first exam. Besides, your homework [560] kept slavishly close to the Annotations. You seem to understand 

what you are writing, why not properly learn the stuff and then just give the answers out of your head? Do you 

think this takes too much time? You must have been working amazingly fast to find all these sources in the limited 

time of an exam. 


[1507] Bob: The naïve mistake is that the transactions that take place are the transfer or 

trade of a commodity for another commodity. This was the case when bartering was the only 

way of trade. Now we have the convenience of money. This use of money in a transaction 

is the metamorphosis of the commodities use-value into money with has no use-value, but 

carries value to be traded for another commodity that has use-value. 

Hans: Your in-class answer had a lot of mainstream theory which is opposed to Marx’s theory. 


[1646] Ernesto: The naive mistake is that a commodity is sold or exchanged for something 

that is completely different. The mistake is that use-value is perceived to change. In reality 

it remains the same. It simply changes form. Whether it be one commodity or another, its 

exchange value remains constant. 


[1683] Dange: graded A The mistake is that the process of sale and purchase is considered 

an activity of exchange, such as barter (annotations, pg. 241, 242). This process makes it 

look like the money commodity has a use-value when in fact it does not. The commodity 

is only acting as money, and all other commodities reflect their value in terms of the money 

commodity. 


Question 365 is 291 in 2001fa, 387 in 2007SP, 414 in 2009fa, 447 in 2010fa, and 458 in 

2012fa: 


Question 365 Why is the commodity not bruised, and why is the commodity owner “bruised,” 

if the commodity’s salto mortale fails? 

[962] DarkKnight: graded A The bruising prospects of trade. When Marx talks about 

the “the leap taken by value from the body of the commodity into the body of the gold” 

[200:4/o], he is referring to what we call on the surface of the economy an exchange or 

trade. The “leap fall[ing] short” indicates that the commodity trader did not receive what 

the commodity was worth in terms of its own value. This is why the commodity owner is 

bruised: he received less value than he gave. The commodity, on the other hand, still retains 

all of its use-value and exchange value. Its new owner need not receive less than the full 

value if he chooses to exchange the commodity again, and its physical properties remain 

unchanged, so it still has all of its use-value. Hence the commodity itself is not bruised, it 

remains whole regardless of what is received in exchange. 

Hans: I am writing this note in 2010fa because students refer to this message as proof that exchange-value is 

preserved. It is not. Only the use-value is preserved. Value is not just physical labor, but it is a social relation. If 

the commodity is produced in excess of what is needed, then the labor in the commodity does not count as socially 

necessary labor. 

Message [962] referenced by [2007SP:1243] and [2010fa:996]. Next Message by DarkKnight is [1076]. 


Question 367 Marx says that the independence of the individuals from each other is supplemented 

by a system of all-round material dependence. Explain what this means. 

[960] Miron: According to Karl Marx, producers of commodities are independent from 

each other in the way they organize production, manage the production, etc. And they 

are formally independent from the society which doesn’t establish special conditions for 

the production and doesn’t regulate it directly. The system of all-round material dependence 

only sets a certain list of rules which different individuals have to follow on a certain stage of 

their economic activity: namely, when they are trying to sell their commodities or exchange 

them. At this stage, the activity of one member of society relates to the activity of others. 

Dependence upon such issues as demand in products, their quality, price and other factors 

creates freedom of choice in production, organization of labor, division of labor, marketing 

strategies, etc. It means that the activity of individual producers is not regulated and limited, 

they are able to choose any orientation of production and organization of labor, and the 

customers are able to purchase any commodities available on the market. 

Market establishes dependence for the producers as they have to follow existing price 

policies for their commodities in order to succeed in commerce and get profits. 

Hans: The market does not establish the dependence for the producers, it merely makes the dependence visible 

which they already have as members of a big social division of labor. 

So as we can see, the goods exchanged can be viewed as a method of influencing the 

activity of different society members through the prism of material goods. In any society 

with market economy or in capitalist society according to Marx: “the seeming mutual independence 

of the individuals is supplemented by a system of general and mutual dependence 

through or by means of the products” (C. I, p. 108). 

Hans: I didn’t find your Marx quote. 

Message [960] referenced by [2007SP:608] and [2007SP:615]. Next Message by Miron is [1117].


Question 369 is 294 in 2001fa, 334 in 2003fa, 374 in 2004fa, 391 in 2007SP, and 403 in 

2008SP: 

Question 369 Do you purchase something with money or with the value of money? 

[948] Tesa: graded B+ money the unique commodity. The use-value of money is to 

be a carrier of exchange value. Therefore, as money is spent for the purchase, the value of 

money is made manifest as it is exchanged for the commodity. Since the only use value 

of (abstract) money is that it can be exchanged, it is the only commodity that can be both 

a use-value and an exchange value to the buyer (as well as to the seller). So the value is 

being exchanged unchanged from the buyer to the seller. But the physical money is also 

corporeally exchanged. So the answer must be both. 

Hans: In [1001] I tried to explain the deeper reason why money has this unique use-value of direct exchangeability. 


[961] Tomek: money. According to Karl Marx and earlier economists gold is universal 

measure of values and that’s why gold becomes money. Value of commodity in gold equivalent 

is the price of commodity. Marx writes that value of commodity is money equivalent of 

man’s labor in the commodity. Marx also states that money is a commodity which functions 

as a measure of price. 

That’s why it’s clear that a customer purchases goods with the value of money. Value 

of money may be expressed in gold equivalent or any equivalent of other precious metals: 

silver, palladium, platinum. From this point the law of issuing money is the following: the 

quantity of money has to be equivalent and limited to the amount of gold or amount of other 

precious metals which can substitute them. That’s why the function of money consists of 

contradictions: payments mutually compensate each other and money function ideally as 

money bills or measure of value. As Karl Marx writes: 

“[Money] serves as an ideal means of purchase. Although existing only in 

the promise of the buyer to pay, it causes the commodity to change hands. . . 

By the currency of the circulating medium, the connexion between buyers 

and sellers is not merely expressed. This connexion is originated by, and 

exists in, the circulation alone” (C., I, p. 136-137) 

So when purchasing goods and making payments money are used as equivalent of precious 

metal (mostly gold) they can be substituted with. It means that money can be viewed 

as absolute commodity and universal means of purchase. 

Hans: Money is the independent form of value, which is no longer tied to any use-value. This value expresses 

itself in everything money can buy, not just noble metals but anything else too. 


[964] Daleman: (graded B weight 30%) We purchase things with the value of money as 

opposed to the money itself. Money represents both commodities that can be bought and the 

commodities that have been sold. Therefore the value lies within the realm of bought and 

sold commodities. 

Hans: If you stay on the surface, you get into the circle: Money can purchase everything because it is valuable. 

And why is it valuable? Because it can purchase everything. (Compare my comments in [2004fa:256].) You have 

to go beneath the surface to understand what really gives money its power to purchase everything. I tried to explain 

this in [1001]. 



[972] Manchu: Purchase with money or value of money? Money, along with every 

other commodity, cannot express its value except relatively in other commodities. We know 

this value to be determined by the labour-time required for its production, and is expressed 

by the quantity of any other commodity that costs the same amount of labour-time. 

Determination of its relative value takes place at the source of its production by means of 

barter. When it enters circulation as money, its value has already been given and therefore, 

we are purchasing the value of money and not money itself. 

Hans: About your first paragraph: The expression of value is, by definition, something that is accessible to the 

economic agents. Otherwise it would not deserve the name “expression.” In a barter economy, the value of a 

commodity is expressed by any other commodity which can be traded for it. In a monetary economy, the value 

of a commodity is expressed by the amount of money this commodity can be sold and bought for (its price). The 

value of a certain amount of money is expressed by all commodities this money can buy. All these expressions are 

relative, i.e., your first sentence is still true. 

It is also true that competition creates the tendency for the things that can be exchanged for each other on the 

market to have equal labor content. But in a situation in which exchange proportions are not proportional to labor 

content, the expression goes by the market relations, not by the invisible labor content. 

In your second paragraph, you describe how this tendency takes effect with money: how can money prices 

under the gold standard be linked to the labor content of gold if neither buyer nor seller produce gold? Marx’s 

answer is that the price level is determined by the original producers mining the gold. But even if we know that 

monetary sales and purchases (under the gold standard) involve money and commodities of equal value, this does 

not imply that the things are bought with the value of the money. 


[1001] Hans: The active ingredient in money. Imagine you are living in England in the 

1850s. Money is gold, and the labor content of a gold coin is roughly equal to the labor 

content of the things you can buy with that coin. Therefore you might think that the labor 

content, i.e., the value, of the gold is the “active” ingredient, which allows you to buy the 

other commodities. 

But it is easy to see that this is a fallacy. After all, the ordinary commodities have value 

too, i.e., they too contain human labor. Nevertheless, they cannot be used as money. Why 

not? Because money not merely represents labor but, in addition, the money holder has 

shown, by the sale of his commodity, that the labor in this commodity is socially necessary 

labor. Money represents labor which bears the social stamp of approval. This is why it 

can be converted, by purchase, into any other use-value, thus giving the labor in those other 

commodities the social stamp of approval. 

Marx says that the apparent power of money does not really come from money itself 

but that the commodities are really the thing which is active. See [2003fa:309]. We can 

understand better now why this is the case. What these commodities need is not value – they 

have value themselves – but they are so eager to convert themselves into money because this 

gives the labor in them the social stamp of approval, without which it would be useless to 

the person who performed it. 

Money evolved over time, and despite the fact that central banks are still holding gold, the 

link of money to gold or any other valuable commodities is tenuous or nonexistent. If value 

had been the active ingredient of commodity money, then the money would not have shed 

its value as it evolved into modern credit money. On the other hand, it is very important that


money has the stability and availability necessary to be able to function as a social stamp of 

approval. This is the big danger behind the devaluation of the dollar which we are presently 

witnessing. If the dollar is no longer perceived to be a reliable and stable compass for what 

is valuable, then the international monetary system must look for a different corner stone 

than the dollar. 

Message [1001] referenced by [948], [964], [2007SP:598], [2007SP:599], [2007SP:689], [2008SP:142], and [2008SP:418]. 


Question 376 is 398 in 2007SP, 411 in 2008SP, 412 in 2008fa, 427 in 2009fa, 462 in 


Question 376 How does Marx define a crisis? 

[951] Nazgul: graded A– The bourgeois, drunk. Marx defines a crisis as the expression 

of all the contradictions of the capitalist mode of production. Primarily the expressions are 

seen in the contradiction between the social character of production and the capitalist form 

of appropriation. 

On page 209 of Capital, Marx does outline some of these contridictions that lead to the 

possibility of crisis, “...use-value and value, between private labour which simultaneously 

manifest itself as directly social labour, and a particular concrete kind of labour which simultaneously 

counts as merely abstract universal labor.” 

To better understand what leads to the possibility of a crisis, Marx gives a good example 

on page 236. Payments made by credit can cause a chain of events that when one individual 

in the link fails to make a payment or pays late, they break the chain making the exchange 

cycle incomplete. This outlines another contradiction, “The bourgeois, drunk with prosperity 

and arrogantly certain of himself, has just declared that money is a purely imaginary 

creation.” 

Marx’s definition of crisis is directly a result of a capitalistic society. James O’Connor, 

in Natural Causes: Essays in Ecological Marxism, makes the assertion that “capitalism 

requires material and social conditions under which exploitable labor power can be reproduced, 

conditions suitable to the profitable investment of capital.” It is the very nature of 

capitalism which pushes for overproduction that leads to many of the crises Marx mentions. 

Hans: Marx said that a “world market crisis” is the expression of all the contradictions of the capitalist mode of 

production, but for a basic more general definition of what a crisis is see my [957]. 


[957] Hans: Definition of crisis, with examples. A crisis is the forceful (re)unification of 

things which belong together but which have drifted apart too much. That is the definition 

you need for the reading here. 

Let us be more concrete. What are in the presently assigned readings the two aspects 

which belong together? To understand this, we have to go back to chapter Two. Marx argued 

that each exchange of two commodities simultaneously has to satisfy two contradictory 

purposes: the traders have to select the right use-value which they need, and they have to 

realize the value of the good they are giving in trade. 


The resolution of this contradiction is to split each exchange of commodities into two 

acts, first sale, and then purchase. The first act specializes on the realization of the value of 

the commodity, and the second on the selection of the use-values. 

The problem is that this split makes the two transactions too independent. People can 

sell and then just go home and keep their money, without buying again for a long time, or 

they can buy somewhere else, etc. There you have two things which belong together, sale 

and subsequent purchase, which can drift apart. A liquidity crisis, in which everybody tries 

to sell and nobody wants to buy, was one of the main forms of crises Marx witnessed in 

his time. (Nowadays policy makers can prevent liquidity crises, but they cannot prevent 

international currency crises.) 

Crises can also be the forceful separation of things which should be independent but 

which are somehow fused together. One example for this can be found in mainstream economics, 

namely, the so-called “Triffin dilemma,” see Robert Triffin, Gold and the Dollar 

Crisis, Yale University Press, 1960. 

Triffin said that there is an inherent and unresolvable contradiction between the role of the 

dollar (or any other national currency, the Euro is not exempt either) as a national currency 

and as an international currency (world money). As world money, so many dollars are 

needed by the system, that sooner or later the confidence in the dollar as a national currency 

will be eroded. 

This is an example of the second definition of crisis: two things which should be separate 

(world money and national currencies) are fused (because this fusion gives economic privileges 

to the dominant power), and Triffin says that at some point, their independence will 

assert itself violently. 

Message [957] referenced by [951], [952], [1419], [1453], [1549], [1617], [1629], [1729], [2007SP:611], [2007SP:1084 

[2008SP:683], [2008fa:667], [2008fa:673], [2009fa:594], [2009fa:921], [2009fa:927], [2009fa:928], [2009fa:929], 

and [2011fa:750]. Next Message by Hans is [958]. 

[1395] Zone: graded A Marx defines a crisis as the forceful uniting of two things that 

belong together, but have drifted apart. In chapter 3 of the Annotations, Marx is talking 

about the separate acts of selling a commodity and purchasing a commodity. Each act serves 

a different purpose for the individual involved in the exchange. The buyer must realize the 

use-value he will get from the commodity being bought. While the seller must see the value 

of the commodity that he is selling. These two interests in the exchange create the separation 

of the sale and purchase of a commodity. 


[1414] Daleman: graded A I may have been a little off in my analysis of what Marx 

refers to as a crisis. Marx refers to a crisis as the forceful re-unification of things that belong 

together but have grown distant. A crisis is also defined as the forceful separation of things 

that should be independent but are joined. 

This can be understood by observing the exchange of two commodities at the same time 

which satisfies two purposes. Leaving the traders to select the appropriate use value. This 

results in two independent transactions. It is possible that the money collected could be saved 

and never spent again. Creating a crisis because the sale and purchase belong together.


Message [1414] referenced by [2008fa:667] and [2008fa:1014]. Next Message by Daleman is [1415]. 

[1419] Prairierose: Marx’s definition of a crisis is the forceful reunification of things 

which belong together but have drifted apart too much (Hans [957]). In Marx’s time the 

main form of crisis was the liquidity crisis, which is a byproduct of hoarding money. A 

person can sell their product; however, she does not necessarily turn around and purchase 

another product. The two things which belong together are the sale and the purchase. If the 

sales drift apart from the purchases you end up with a liquidity crisis. Another kind of crisis 

is the forceful separation of things which should be independent but which are somehow 

fused together. An example of this crisis is the Triffin dilemma. Triffin’s theory is that 

world currencies and national currencies should be separated, but they are fused and their 

independence will at some point assert itself violently [957]. 


[1453] ADHH: graded A Marx defines a crisis as a situation where two things that belong 

together are forcefully reunited. An example of this first type of crisis that Hans made in 

submission [957] is the separation of use-value and value when the exchange of commodities 

is split into the sale and then the purchase. According to Marx’s definition, when two things 

are connected that should not be, the forceful separation of these two things is also a crisis. 


[1540] TimJim: As Hans states, a crisis can be defined as “..the forceful reunification 

of things which belong together but which have drifted apart too much.” Marx mentioned 

a couple of ways that this crisis could, and will happen in our capitalist society. One of 

these crisises would happen when the capitalists start to hoard their money and would not 

use it to purchase commodities in the marketplace. A crisis would also happen when the 

capitalists were only looking to sell their commodities and not looking to exchange them. 

These situations will cause capitalism to fall on itself. 

Hans: Actually, these are not the causes of capitalism’s downfall. They are only the cracks in the surface in which 

the deeper contradictions of capitalism manifest themselves. 


[1617] JJ: graded B A crisis as defined by 

Hans in e-mail [957] is the forceful “unification” 

or “re-unification” of things which 

(As Submitted:) A crisis as defined 

by Hans in [957] is the forceful “unification” 

or “re-unification” of things which are 

are too far apart. In the exchange process 

the separation comes from the contradic- 

too far apart. In the exchange process this 

tory condition that the trader as producer is (re)unification of use values and values is 

trying to realize the value of their product the contradictory condition. To solve this 

contradiction the buying and selling por- 

and the trader as consumer trying to get the tion should be seperated. This contradictory 

use-value that suits their needs. To solve condition causes “too much” independence 

this contradiction the barter of the product between buyer and seller, therefore there is 

is separated into first selling then buying. an unequal distribution of goods. Once a 

This solves the contradiction but re-creates 

it in a different form because now there 

seller sells, he/she is under no obligation to 

buy and vice versa. 


is “too much” independence between buyer 

and seller. Once a seller sells, he/she is under 

no obligation to buy and vice versa. 

The second type of crisis is the use a national 

currency used as an international currency.This 

is where the concept of dollarization 

comes into play. Ecuaudor, for example 

The second type of crisis is the use a national 

currency used as an international currency. 

This is where the concept of dollarization 

comes into play. Ecuador, for example, 

has adopted the U.S. dollar as its own has adopted the U.S. dollar as its own form 

form of national currency. According to of national currency. According to Marx 

Marx the potential crisis lies in the fact that the potential crisis lies in the fact that if a 

nation adopts another nations national cur- 

if a nation adopts another nation’s national rency, then “sooner or later” confidence in 

currency, then “sooner or later” confidence that nation’s currency will be eroded. In 

in that nation’s currency will be eroded. In terms of the U.S. condifidence in the US 

terms of the U.S. confidence in the US dol- dollar could be eroded because of dollarizalar 

could be eroded because of dollarization. tion. 

Hans: Your resubmission omitted an important part of the argument which you made in the in-class exam. I edited 

it back into it, and had to make so many changes that I found it worth while to show both the original and the edited 

version. 

Your original answer had the sentence: “Once a seller sells, he/she is under no obligation to buy and vice versa.” 

The “vice versa” was out of place. After someone buys they will usually consume the commodities; there is nothing 

left to re-sell. The critical question is: what do people do after selling, i.e., after the first half of their C-M-C? If too 

many transactors hold on to their money instead of buying again, this can give a liquidity crisis. 

The dollarization of Ecuador and other countries may give problems for Ecuador but this is not the same as the 

Triffin dilemma. Triffin sees a problem with a national currency doubling as world money, i.e., as the medium in 

which all international transactions are contracted and settled. 


[1629] Nazgul: graded A Third time’s the charm. The third time’s the charm or so 

I hope so in my case of answering this question. Originally I had defined a crisis as the 

expression of all of the contradictions of the capitalist mode of production, however, those 

contradictions are far and wide and do require further clarity. Marx’s definition of a crisis 

is two-fold and therefore embraces two separate aspects. The first which is clearly stated 

by your [957] is “the forceful (re)unification of things which belong together but which 

have drifted apart too much.” Marx explains what is meant by the drifting apart of things 

that belong together on page 208 of Capital, “If this means that the number of actual sales 

accomplished is equal to the number of purchases, it is a flat tautology.” 

In layman terms this means that the circulation of money does not always remain in 

circulation. In the capitalist pursuit of profit, there becomes an overproduction of goods 

which results in a crisis, too many goods and not enough buyers, a liquidity crisis ensues. 

The stock market crash of 1929 is an excellent example of this.


The second example of the crisis is “two things which should be separate are fused together”. 

The easiest way to understand this is to think of it like an oxymoron where two 

contradictory words or phrases are put together which normally do not belong like jumbo 

shrimp, and so this same principle applies in economics. 

Hans: There is a difference between a liquidity crisis and an overproduction crisis. The former is just triggered by 

not enough money being around in certain situations because sellers hold the money instead of buying. This was 

a problem at Marx’s time, but nowadays the Fed, as lender of last resort, can pump liquidity into the economy to 

fend off such crises. 

An overproduction crisis happens when the inner unity of production and consumption is violated, as it is in 

capitalism where production is not done for the sake of consumption but for the sake of profits. 


[1659] SueGirl: graded A Definition of crisis. Marx describes a crisis as being a.) produced 

by the evolution of two externally independent processes (which have a complementary 

internal connection), proceeding until they are violently united. He also considers a 

crisis as b.) the forcible separation of moments which are essentially one. 

A simple example of each of the previous definitions of a crisis could involve the family 

unit. An example of definition a.) would be the unification of my family and my step-family 

after the marriage of our parents. Although the parents were the internal connection, the sets 

of children were independent of the other, which made the two families move into the same 

house an abrupt and violent unity.:) 

An example of b.) would be the original separation of my parents when they were divorced. 

Having been essentially “one”, their forcible separation felt unnatural and was perceived 

as a crisis. 

A student from Hans’ 2003 class stated that Marx also defined a crisis as “the forcible 

reconciliation of aspects which belong together but which have moved apart” 

http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/ope-l/2003m03/msg00005.htm 

He referenced the Iraq war as being this type of crisis, since the country is being forcibly 

reconciled in every respect. 

Hans: Your in-class exam has the wrong definition of crisis, and your resubmission only corrected the first half of 

it. The “forcible separation of moments which are essentially one” is not a crisis. The forcible separation of two 

moments which are, despite being essentially different, united by an external bond, is a crisis. 

A divorce is an excellent example of this kind of crisis, but compared with you I am switching around what 

is considered essential and what external. In their essence, the married couple grow apart, and at some point the 

marriage bond which tries to impose an external unity on them, that internally no longer exists, must be shattered 

by a crisis-like event, the divorce. 

Two separate families moving together by marriage is the forceful exterior unification of two until then separate 

elements, with the goal to establish the inner unity afterwards. Here the exterior action precedes the inner 

development, instead of lagging behind as in a crisis. 

Hans: Originally the above definition of a crisis was “The forcible separation of moments which are essentially 

different but which are externally united is a crisis.” Since this lead to misunderstandings, as in [2007SP:605], I am 

changing this in 2007SP. 

Message [1659] referenced by [2007SP:605], [2007SP:611], and [2007SP:1138]. Next Message by SueGirl is 

[1661]. 

Question 378 is 260 in 1998WI, 270 in 1999SP, 326 in 2002fa, 381 in 2004fa, 401 in 

2007SP, 415 in 2008fa, and 430 in 2009fa: 


Question 378 Describe how and why commodity circulation contains the possibility of crisis. 

[952] MrPink: graded A– Commodity circulation and crisis. Since commodities are 

produced for the exchange of money there is an incentive to produce more. This incentive to 

produce commodities can encourage more people to participate in the output of labor. One 

possibility is that as technology increases and efficiencies are discovered, those producers 

who do not utilize the same technology have to use more labor than their competitors. This 

can decrease the value of their labor, or create a waste of labor. At the same time the 

increased production can create a surplus of exchangeable commodities (for circulation) 

in the marketplace. This can create a lack of demand. This is a possible crisis. 

When talking about unity I believe that Marx relays that this can be avoided if the producers 

coordinate production. 

Hans: Some of your examples are situations in which prices change unexpectedly. This alone does not create 

crises. A crisis would be a situation in which such discrepancies accumulate until they bring the system down. 

Your first example is of this type: the tendency of capitalism to produce more than is demanded can create crises. 

(A more formal definition of crisis is in my [957]: production and consumption belong together, but in capitalism 

they may be separated too much). 


[1420] MK: Commodities are produced for the exchange of monies, thus there is an incentive 

to produce more commodities. The incentive to produce more commodities can trigger a 

response in people to participate in the labor process – thus creating more labor output. This 

increased production can lead to a surplus of commodities and/or a decrease in the value of 

labor. A surplus of a given comomodity may create a lack of demand for the commodity, yet 

a surplus.. this is a crisis. 

Hans: You explained how capitalism (not commodity circulation) contains the necessity (not mere possibility) of 

crisis. 


[1483] Thelonius: A crisis has been defined as: “The hasty reunification of things which 

belong together and have been forcefully divided.” Examples of economic crises are many, 

but in relationship to Marx’s discussions of price, money as a commodity and commodity circulation, 

the disparity that may develop between a commodity’s value and the market price 

of the commodity is a good example to use here. Socially necessary labor time, labor-value 

to the wage worker and labor-power to the capitalist are all represented by a commodity’s 

value. Since all of these values are contained within the commodity form, it is necessary that 

the market price of the commodity reflects these initial value inputs in order to proliferate 

further production of the commodity. Through circulation and the faults associated with the 

expanded form of exchange, the natural price of the commodity dictated by a large market 

can fall below production values. In this case, the commodity will not produce the return 

necessary to continue production. 

The current trend of global market expansion is replete with this dilemma. The market 

provides the forced divide between the value and the price of a commodity, while the disparate 

return of value acts as the hasty reunification of these things. The crisis occurs as the 

insufficient return of value disallows the proliferation of production and wages are no longer 

paid to the wage-worker, barring the worker from life’s neccesities.


Hans: The disparity is not one between price and value but between value and wealth: If value is to be the 

guideline for production and consumption, higher wealth must be associated with higher value. But in a market 

system, it is associated with lower value. This contradiction manifests itself in the falling rate of profit and other 

market-obstacles of production, which forcefully try to trim down wealth in order to be in line with value. 


[1549] Rudy: graded A Possibility of Crisis. A crisis can occur in commodity circulation 

by the (re)unification of things that are meant to be together but are not together, or by the 

“fusion” of two things meant to function independently. The first possibility of crisis occurs 

when the act of transfering use-value from commodity to money form is not followed by 

a subsequent purchase in the same market, as is natural is the circulation process. There 

is nothing that forces money to stay in the market. This can result in an overproduction 

of goods and other if money floods back into the market. Another possibility of crisis can 

occur in circulation when two independent aspects are fused together such as a national 

currency becoming the “social stamp of approval” for international exchange. Hans quoting 

Triffin in [957] explains that if so many units of a national currency are needed for world 

money, confidence in that world money will diminish. Triffin says that this struggle will 

result in a violent assertion of independence by the independent variables, i.e., in a crisis in 

the circulation process. 

Hans: The “fusion of two things meant to function independently” is not yet a crisis, but the violent separation of 

these artificially fused things is. In the Triffin example, the two things which are meant to function independently 

(because they have different purpose and face different constraints) are national money and world money. Triffin 

simply says that the fusion of these two roles (the dollar being at the same time the national currency of the USA 

and world money) is a crisis-prone situation which may lead to a violent separation of these two roles. 


[1558] Thugtorious: graded A Crisis. A crisis, or the potential for a crisis, is a situation 

where two things are separate that should be unified. The actual crisis itself is when these 

two things are reunified. The potential for a crisis in commodity circulation comes about 

when the exchange process is subdivided into two acts: the sale and the purchase. As Marx 

says, this division allows the process to transcend space and time barriers. A person that sells 

a good does not need to immediately purchase another good. Within M-C-M’ circulation a 

person can choose to hoard their money instead of injecting directly back into circulation. 

Since these two aspects should be unified in exchange, and they have been divorced in commodity 

circulation, the potential for a crisis exists. However, for the crisis to be realized, 

there must be a larger sequence of events to bring about the reunification. 

Hans: Yes, your last sentence is important. This is only a very abstract possibility of crises, and deeper contradictions, 

like capitalism’s tendency for overproduction, are needed to realize this possibility. 

Message [1558] referenced by [2007SP:605], [2007SP:611], [2007SP:824], and [2008fa:676]. Next Message by 

Thugtorious is [1567]. 

[1584] Dandy: Commodity crisis. Crisis is a coming together of two things, which 

originally belong together but have drifted to far apart. Marx states that the ultimate reason 

for all real crises always remains the poverty and restricted consumption of the masses as 

opposed to the drive of capitalist production to develop the productive forces. 

The tendency of capitalism to produce more than is demanded can create a crisis. The 

problem of sale and purchase is that they carry on separately and therefore can be easily 


thrown out of balance. A commodity crisis occurs if the gap in time between the two transactions 

is too great, if the split between the sale and the purchase become too pronounced, 

then a crisis develops. 


[1634] Adamwest: Sellers and Buyers that are in a crisis! Commodity circulation 

involves the buying and trading of goods. In theory a farmer will take his produce and sell it. 

Then in turn use his profits to purchase another seller’s product. Now say the farmer decides 

to save his profits instead of buying more commodities. This simple case will not cause a 

crisis. A crisis would be caused if a majority of the population decided to save their money. 

This will cause sellers to not be able to sell their commodities. Then when the farmer brings 

more produce to sell; nobody will be able to afford his product. This form of crisis is called 

a liquidity crisis. It occurs when there is a substantially larger amount of sellers than buyers. 


[1668] Miron: A commodity circulation can contain the possibility of a crisis for several 

reasons. A commodity can circulate through an entire cycle of business or people. The 

commodity can being in a factory makes its way to a wholesale store then a retail store, 

although as this occurs its value could decrease. Its value may not necessarily decrease 

because its traveled around it may be because it has lost its appeal or price exceeds the 

demand for it. This could then lead to the possibility of a crisis because the commodity 

circulation will begin to slow down and eventually there will be no circulation and no interest 

in the given commodity. 

Hans: Please look up how Marx defines a crisis. 

First Message by Miron is [754]. 

[1729] Surferboy: Commodity circulation contains the possiblity of crisis when production 

and consumtion are separated as Hans stated in [957]. Also crisis occurs when exchange 

is not equal. For example if a corn farmer sells 50 dollars worth of corn to a wine producer 

and receive 40 dollars worth of wine instead of 50. The exchange of the commodities was 

not equal between the farmer and the wine producer. 

Hans: Unequal exchange is not something Marx would consider a crisis. 


[1737] Stretch: With the circulation of a commodity a crisis could occur, either with the 

amount of supply, or the process of circulation. Hurricane Katrina gave us a perfect example 

of this with gasoline. Some refineries were damaged and unable to produce their product, 

which was and still is, in high demand. This crisis was so severe because it was impacted 

by both factors. The supply of gasoline was diminished, which drove prices higher, but also 

the pipelines were also not functioning so the process of circulation was disrupted. Again 

the capitalists (oil companies) took advantage and have reaped huge profits from this crisis, 

because they control the supply and the means of circulation. 

Hans: High prices due to a shortage is not something Marx would consider a crisis. 


Question 379 is 400 in 2004fa, 408 in 2007SP, 419 in 2008fa, 471 in 2010fa, 472 in 

2011fa, and 493 in 2012fa:


Question 379 Marx defines money as the commodity which at the same time functions as 

measure of value and means of circulation. Is there a commodity today which has these two 

functions? Is there money today? 

[979] Bob: The fact that the value of commodities changes all the time and they are almost 

never exchanged as a means of circulation tells me the answer to the first question is no. I 

cannot think of one commodity that has both of these functions. 

The second question at hand asks if there is money today. Since Marx defines money 

as both a measure of value and a means of circulation I would say yes. Our money today 

follows both of these requirements. It is a measure of value in that it is monitored and kept 

for the most part in a stable condition. This is done by macroeconomists with both fiscal and 

monetary policy. Also the government has produced a promise that the legal tender will be 

backed up. Of course the value may change from time to time due to many different factors, 

but it holds as a measure of value. Secondly, we know it is circulated by the Fed. So today 

we are not using gold to serve as money like in Marx’s time, but we do have our money that 

is a measure of value and a means of circulation. 

Hans: The money is circulated by the Fed not only in the sense that it is put into circulation by the Fed, but also 

that banks can use their reserve deposits with the Fed in order to clear interbank money transfers. 


[992] Avatar: graded A In response to [979] submitted by Bob, I offer the following to 

refute his assertion that no commodity exists today that satisfies Marx’s two conditions for 

it to emerge as money. 

Today it is hard to identify a commodity in mainstream culture that satisfies Marx’s two 

conditions necessary for a commodity to emerge as money. However, if we focus on the 

prison subculture, this commodity becomes quite apparent: cigarettes. Within prison walls, 

cigarettes serve as a “measure of value” for other commodities and as the “medium of circulation.” 

One inmate could purchase a commodity, say a dirty magazine for nine cigarettes; a 

circumstance that expresses the value of one commodity, the magazine, as a quantity of the 

money commodity – nine cigarettes. To satisfy the other condition of money, circulation, 

we can look at the occurrence of prison gambling. Inmates use cigarettes when betting and 

by doing so are attempting to increase their hold of cigarettes as a means of procuring the 

use-values of other commodities through purchase with cigarettes. Inmates do not gamble 

merely to increase their holding of tobacco for personal consumption. The nuance of this 

example that affirms cigarettes as money, and not something accumulated for its own usevalue 

(to smoke it) is stratified by the incidence of participants in this money system who 

do not smoke. For them, cigarettes have no use-value and are only a commodity that can 

express the use-value of other commodities or be circulated as money. 

Message [992] referenced by [994], [995], [2007SP:681], and [2010fa:573]. Next Message by Avatar is [995]. 

[994] PAE: This is in response to answers [979] and [992] given by Bob and Avatar 

regarding a different commodity in our modern society besides money that meets both requirements 

of “measure of value” and “circulation.” In addition can we even say money 

today meets these two requirements? 

I think the example Avatar gives about the cigarettes in prison being able to meet both 

requirements is a good one and I think it is right. I think the flaw in that argument is that 


cigarettes are a single commodity in a restricted market. We could look at many different 

commodities such as baseball cards among people who collect them and possibly define it 

as a commodity which meets the two requirements, but it only meets those requirements to a 

select group of people. So I agree with Bob. I don’t think there is another commodity which 

on a national or international level that could be a measure of value and means of circulation 

the way Marx is talking about it. 

Now does money itself meet these requirements? I once again agree with Bob in saying 

yes it does. Money determines the value of almost anything we deal with on a daily basis 

and we allow this because we have faith in the relative value of our money compared to 

other commodities and the Fed itself who backs up the value. Everybody from the Government/corporations 

to small businesses/individuals circulates modern day money on a daily 

basis. 


[995] Avatar: (graded A) Ungraded response to PAE. In defense of my [992], I would 

like to rebut the criticism of PAE’s post [994] in regard to my argument’s “flaw”. Primarily, 

I would like to scrutinize his assertion that, in my example, cigarettes being “a single commodity 

in a restricted market” is a flaw in my argument. The restricted market of the American 

prison system is a reality of my example; albeit the prison market is the limitation of 

the application of my example, it is not a flaw in my argument that within prisons, cigarettes 

satisfy Marx’s conditions for money emergence. The argument’s credibility doesn’t suffer 

because of the limited market and I am the first to point out the limited scope of my example 

by referring to the prison system as a “subculture” in the second sentence of my post. 

PAE’s assertion that if we accept my cigarette example, then we must also accept baseball 

cards (within the collector market) as meeting Marx’s money emergence criteria seems 

wrong to me. To expound on that I would like to restate a critical aspect of my example 

that I apparently failed to make clear in my original post. One of the important characteristics 

of cigarettes in my example is what Marx referred to when he wrote, “Hier ist also 

der Sklave des Handels sein Herr geworden.” I tried to make plain in my post that the use 

of cigarettes by non-smokers to procure use-values from other commodities is an important 

aspect of money emergence. For non-smokers, cigarettes have no use-value of their own 

and in this transition where use-value is shed from the commodity that is being circulated, 

money emerges. Hans writes in the annotations, page 268, “It is less than the commodities, 

because it has no use-value.” This is where the baseball card example collapses because the 

cards do have a use value to the people collecting them. I would go so far as to say that 

the personal use-value that a collector derives from a particular baseball card is the primary 

motivation for his/her collecting wanted and circulating unwanted cards. For the baseball 

card example to work in the same way the cigarette example does, the cards would have to 

shed use-value as in this way and represent the use-values of other commodities, not just 

be used to trade for another baseball card. I.E. 9 baseball cards is worth “a copy of Jugs.” 

(Cummings 2005) 

Hans: Your point regarding the baseball cards is very good. Regarding the cigarettes, the limitations of your 

example do indeed make a difference. It is the “small” difference between the general equivalent and money forms 

referred to in question 203. Cigarettes are not everywhere and always the general equivalent, but only in prisons. 

Therefore they are general equivalent but not money. See [2002fa:58], which uses exactly this example, or any 

other answers to the question which has number 203 this Semester.



Question 390 Does the quantity of the means of circulation depend on the commodity 

prices, or do commodity prices depend on the quantity of the means of circulation? (Give 

separate answers for gold coins and for inconvertible paper money, and give Marx’s arguments 

why the quantity theory of money is wrong.) 

[694] Robgodfell: A poorly worded question on Money Supply and Labor. While 

reading through the Pre Exam One Annotations or whatever they’re called, I was curious 

about the odd dineros naturales($). 

Being that money is the General Equivalent for all commodities, and all of commodities’ 

value can be recognized as deposited/represented in the little slips, when the Federal Reserve 

or any central bank expands the money supply, is more available labor therefore freed for 

possible production? 

That probably made no sense whatsoever. 

Let me try again. 

When money is increased, being that it allows others to purchase the products of qualitatively 

equal human labor, is unused labor thus capable of being demanded/paid for, or is it 

something else entirely? 

Someone ease my confusion or just tell me to shove it. . . whichever comes first. 

Message [694] referenced by [698] and [706]. Next Message by Robgodfell is [708]. 

[698] Bubba: Money supply versus labor. Re: Robgodfell [694] My understanding is 

that expanding the money supply simply decreases the value of money because it makes it 

easier to obtain (ie., less labor needed to go out and accumulate money). Since money itself 

is a commodity (even though it’s in the general equivalent / money form), just like the earlier 

discussion about water bottles in New Orleans said they could sell for a lot more than they 

normally would because of their scarcity and resulting amount of labor it took to bring them 

there, money takes less and less labor to obtain when there’s more and more of it. This may 

be slightly twisted, but it makes sense to me. 


[706] Hans: Money Supply and Labor. In response to [694], Marx’s theory of money 

is a theory of commodity money, i.e., money was gold. The expansion of the money supply 

therefore required the expenditure of gold mining labor. 

Gold mining labor is special because gold miners do not have to sell anything before they 

can buy. They can buy directly with the gold they have dug out of the ground. With this 

they perform an important role for the system as a whole. In an expanding economy, some 

people must be able to buy before they sell. 

In the present global economy, the US Federal Reserve is supplying liquidity to the world 

by buying things with newly printed dollars, i.e., by buying before selling. In a rational 

world, developing nations should be the ones who are allowed to buy before selling, so that 

they can build their infrastructure. In the present system, the USA, the richest nation of the 

world, is absorbing real wealth created by other nations in exchange for paper dollars. This 


seignorage tax is a more primitive form of exploitation than building factories and exploiting 

the unpaid labor of the workers. It is not as resilient as honest capitalist exploitation, and 

will probably not last as long. 


Exam Question 396 is 296 in 1999SP, 419 in 2004fa, 425 in 2007SP, 437 in 2008fa, 453 

in 2009fa, 490 in 2010fa, 496 in 2011fa, and 518 in 2012fa: 

Exam Question 396 Bring examples of situations where money functions as money and not 

merely as measure of value or means of circulation. 

[1346] Zone: graded B One example where money functions as money and not as a measure 

of value or means of circulation is when money is hoarded. When money is taken out 

of circulation it does not have these properties until it is put back into circulation. 

Hans: This answer would not quite get full points in the exam because you bring only one example. The three 

main examples from Marx’s text are hoard, payment in the settlement of debts, and, at the time of the gold standard, 

also gold shipments to settle balance of payments imbalances. See [1999SP:314] and [2004fa:434]. 


[1348] Hans: Money as money. Zone’s [1346] would not quite get full points in the 

exam because Zone brings only one example. The three main examples from Marx’s text 

are hoard, payment in the settlement of debts, and, at the time of the gold standard, also gold 

shipments to settle balance of payments imbalances. See [1999SP:314] and [2004fa:434]. 



2010fa: 

Question 398 Is it right to say that M−C−M is incomplete because it ends with money, 

and the money is nothing by itself but must be spent? 

[1005] Gza: graded A Marx states explicitly the form M-C-M represents a simple circulation 

of commodities, the result being an exchange of money against money. He says in the 

first phase, the purchase M-C, money is converted or “changed into a commodity” (Marx 

247). The second phase, the sale C-M, is where a commodity is “changed back into money” 

(Marx 247). It is the union of the two phases or exchanges that allows money to be transferred 

into commodities and then the same commodities to be transferred back for money. 

This however, results for the sake of being able to purchase commodities in order to sell them 

which leads into the whole cycle again. In a sense one gains money to buy commodities to 

sell to get money to buy more commodities. The cycle is continuous in this sense. However, 

Marx notes if one ignores the “formal differences between buying and selling,” the result of 

the form is money being exchanged for money, M-M (Marx 247). However, this reduced 

form does not make sense unless money is exchanged for more money, or to acquire more 

than one provides. The “profit” gained from exchanging money for more money, in reduced 

form, inevitably leads back into the infinitely regressive cycle of M-C-M. 

Hans: About your first sentence: Marx calls C-M-C the “simple circulation of commodities,” and he says in 

247:4/o that M-C-M is specifically different from C-M-C. Other than that you give all the relevant arguments. But 

a short summary of your results, as I attempt in [1044], would have been helpful. 

Message [1005] referenced by [1044]. Next Message by Gza is [1045].


[1044] Hans: The short answer. Yes, M-C-M’ is incomplete, but not for the reason stated 

in the question. It is incomplete because the M’ has exactly the same form as the original 

M. The same reasons which drive M to go through M-C-M’ will therefore drive M’ to go 

throgh M’-C’-M”. 

Last year, in my remarks to [2004fa:469-1], I formulated it this way: “A capitalist is never 

finished, but for other reasons than those given in the question.” 

Gza said similar things in [1005], but he never brought it down to this concise form. 

Message [1044] referenced by [1005], [2007SP:683], and [2010fa:586]. Next Message by Hans is [1070]. 

[1410] Bubba: graded A M-C-M’. The correct reason for the incompleteness is that the 

drive to advance money will lead the money-holder beyond M-C-M’ to M’-C-M”. I want 

to withdraw the additional scenario that I gave on my test answer, because that was too 

unlikely to be worth considering. There, I had stated that the given reason that “money must 

be spent” could also hypothetically be incorrect if the money advancer suddenly becomes a 

money hoarder after achieving M’. Again, the only substantial reason that the phrase “money 

must be spent” is incorrect when advancing money in the M-C-M’ cycle is because it is a 

cycle. 


[1487] Picard: graded A– I do not believe it is right to say that M-C-M is incomplete. 

Although it is often followed by another M-C-M it does not have to go on forever. Money 

itself can be a commodity, it is also the first form of capital. Money becomes a commodity 

in the case of hoarding, in the payment of debts, and in transfers to pay off balances when in 

its gold form. Marx also says that money can be exchanged for money, M-M, but this only 

holds if the second money received is greater than the first. 

Hans: You have refuted the claim in the question that money is nothing by itself, because in all the function of 

money as money, money by itself is very important. But Marx gives a different argument why M-C-M is incomplete. 


[1494] Iblindone: graded B Having M-C-M for a consumer would be wrong, because they 

sell their commodity for money and in turn purchase another commodity(ies). However, if 

you were to look at the capitalist this equation is correct instead of C-M-C that a consumer 

has they have M-C-M. The capitalist invests money to produce a commodity and sells it for 

M’ (profit). 

Hans: You didn’t say anything about incomplete. 


[1535] PAE: Yes the M-C-M equation is incomplete with money at the end of the equation. 

A person will decide when and where to use the money at the end of that equation; it acts 

the same as money at the start of the equation. The money does not have to be spent, but as 

soon as it is the equation (M-C-M-C-M. . . ) will continue to go on and on. Although it is up 

to the person to decide when to use the money. 

Hans: You are right: they don’t have to keep doing it. Marx is looking at the surface form and is trying to conclude 

what is behind it. The form facilitates continuation, and we know that in real life the circuit of capital is indeed 

continuous. Marx concludes from this: it is not an accident that they keep on doing it; they keep doing it because 

their goal is the generation of a continuous and increasing flow of surplus-value. 


[1627] Pisciphiliac: graded A The statement that “M-C-M is incomplete because it ends 

with money” can be argued as correct. The M-C-M statement is a good starting point to 


show how profits (and the theory of) are made, but it leaves and open end. The forces that 

caused the first M to proceed through the M-C-M cycle still exist when the cycle is complete 

and will pressure the second M to enter the cycle again. The true cycle will look more 

like M-C-M-C-M-C-M. Holding money (taking it out of circulation) defeats the capitalist’s 

intentions. 


[1692] Aaron: Yes and no, one can say that all the values are equal in M-C-M otherwise 

there would be no exchange. So the end is back at the beginning however each individual 

affected in the equation does so voluntarily. And the gain something of use-value for themselves. 

So the M is the same form as M’, so it is not for the reason stated in the question. 

Money can also be used to repay debt, balance payments in transactions, and for hoarding. 

Hans: Clearly, M’ must be bigger than M, otherwise nobody would be doing M-C-M’, but now the missing link in 

in your answer is that M’ is not closer to the goal of having more money than M itself. 


[1814] MrPink: graded A My comments in the exam: M-C-M is the expending of money 

where in one example a farmer uses money to plant and harvest wheat. He then sells the 

wheat for money. This, although it might seem incomplete, is a full cycle. Lets say, that the 

farmer incurs debt to pay his bills during harvest, he can use the money from M2 to pay off 

the debt. Another use would be to use M2 (made in year one) to fund M1 for the coming 

year (year two). 


I was incorrect in stating that M-C-M is complete. It in fact is incomplete. In my example 

above, I state that the farmer uses M2 to fund additional uses. That in itself shows that it is 

not complete. 

In the Archives you mention that “A capitalist is never finished”, I think that describes 

my farmer because he will always try to generate more value. AntonioGramsci’s comments 

[2004fa:470-2] also make a good point, the capitalist will hold the money “until a potential 

profit situation presents itself”. 


Question 401 is 211 in 1996sp, 211 in 1996ut, 288 in 1998WI, 300 in 1999SP, 337 in 


in 2008SP, 460 in 2009fa, 497 in 2010fa, 530 in 2012fa, and 497 in Answer: 

Question 401 If someone first buys a car, and after two years trades it in for a new car, is 

that C−M−C or M−C−M? 

If someone first buys a house, then after ten years decides to move and sells his house for a 

profit, is this C−M−C or M−C−M? 

If a farmer raises wheat, then at the end of the year sells his crop and with the proceeds buys 

the materials to raise next year’s wheat, is that C−M−C or M−C−M? 

[999] Ace: graded A If someone buys a car, and uses the vehicle for two years and turns 

around and trades it in, I believe that it is C-M-C. I think this way because the person did 

not intend to make money by buying a car; a new car loses value tremendously right after 

it leaves the car lot. There is no way someone will gain as much as he spent buying the car


in the first place. On page 297 of the annotations Hans says “M-M only makes sense if it is 

M-M’, exchange of money for more money”. It has no logic if money is not being made and 

so M-C-M is not being done here. I think that the used car is being sold so the person can 

buy a new car. 

If someone first buys a house and after ten years decides to move and sell it and makes 

a profit it is C-M-C. This is why; at the beginning the man bought the house because he 

wanted a use-value and not an exchange value. He wanted to live in it for a long time, not 

turn and try to sell it for a profit. His intentions are what makes the big difference in making 

it a C-M-C and not a M-C-M. He will probably go and buy another house with the money. 

Now the Farmer that raises wheat then at the end of the year sells his crop for materials 

for next year. The only reason that the farmer is farming wheat instead of something else 

is because he can make money off of it. Not only will the farmer pay for material for next 

year but he is also making enough money off of his crops to provide for his family for the 

up coming year. This makes it M-C-M because he is making a profit on the wheat and that 

is what he is trying to do in the beginning. 

Hans: Very good reasoning. For many years I thought this was the right answer, but then I changed my mind 

regarding the house, see [2004fa:284]. 

Message [999] referenced by [1000], [1003], and [2007SP:704]. Next Message by Ace is [1004]. 

[1000] Tink: graded A I agree with Ace [999] regarding each of the three situations in 

this question, but would like to expand further on why. 

If someone buys a car, and after two years trades it in for a a new car, he is practicing 

C-M-C because the money has been converted into a use value, and has also been spent 

once and for all. The end result of the exchange was a commodity, allbeit an upgrade, but 

a commodity nonetheless. Though he trades it in for that upgrade, as Ace addressed the car 

depreciates in value as soon as it is purchased, so there was no profit from trading it in. It 

can also be assumed that the person had to spend additional money in order to acquire the 

new car. 

As for the buyer of a house, who after ten years decides to move and sell for a profit, 

according to Marx he has released “the money, but only with the cunning intention of getting 

it back again.” Thus the buyer is engaging in the C-M-C pattern, because the question 

distinctly states he is looking to make a profit, he is looking to end up with money. 

The third scenario is not quite as clear-cut. Ace says the farmer is engaging in M-C- 

M because he is “making a profit on the wheat and that is what he is trying to do in the 

beginning”. However, if he is selling the wheat to make money to buy more wheat, this could 

easily be misconstrued as C-M-C. The farmer is practicing M-C-M, but not just because he is 

trying to profit. He is trying to profit so he can afford wheat, to attempt to profit again. Marx 

says in the cycle C-M-C that “there is no connection between the expenditure of money 

and its reflux”. In the farmer’s situation there is direct correlation. He must purchase the 

wheat to sell it, to afford to purchase more, to sell it once more. Thus it is M-C-M. As 

Marx says, “the very manner in which the money is expended creates the condition for its 

reflux”. Ultimately we could assume that the farmer will want to retire and have one final 

season of growing wheat and then selling it, which will leave him with the profits of that 


sale. “Without this reflux, the operation fails, or the process is interrupted and incomplete, 

since its complementary and final phase, the sale, is missing.” 

Hans: The question deliberately did not state that the intention of the house sale was to make a profit. The formulation 

was “decides to move and sells for a profit,” not “decides to move and sell for a profit.” You overlooked this 

extra “s” which makes a big difference. The homeowner decides to move for some reason, therefore has to sell the 

house, and it turns out that the house is sold for a profit. When I wrote this question I was thinking of a situation 

similar to that of Rugdoctor’s sister described in [2004fa:268]. (By the way, I agree with your conclusion that it is 

M-C-M, but for different reasons, see my [2004fa:284].) 

Your reasoning for the third scenario is excellent. 


[1002] Rudy: graded A I agree with both Tink and Ace on the answers but I wanted to 

add some thoughts focusing on use-values. Point five in Hans’ summary of the differences 

of C-M-C and M-C-M states “[The] Starting point and goal are commodities in C-M-C, and 

money in M-C-M.” Michael gave a great rule of thumb in the class discussion, which is that 

in deciding between C-M-C and M-C-M one should ask if the exchange is for use-value or 

is it to enhance the exchange. 

In the case of the car both Tink and Ace pointed out that the original car and the end 

car hold use-value to the buyer. In addition, money used to buy the new car is only held 

temporarily, a key point in number six of the differences listed. 

I feel it is the same issue with the house. The original house held use-value for the owner, 

and since he had to move, the second house also held use-value. Thus the person started 

with a commodity and ended with a commodity. Regardless of whether the person made a 

profit, he held the money temporarily in order to buy a new house which the person needed. 

It seems to me that if the person was looking to end up with money, that would be M-C-M, 

which is not so in this case because, again, the person needed the house anyway. 

The farmer is the opposite. The wheat itself has no use-value to the farmer. The purpose 

of the exchange is to enhance the original exchange for next year’s crop. Marx states that 

in M-C-M, “...the buyer lays out money in order that, as a seller he may recover money” 

[249:2]. Just as Michael pointed out, we are able to decipher the transformation by elvaluating 

use-values or intentions to enhance exchange. 


[1003] Nazgul: (graded A weight 50%) CMC Confusion. I view question 401 differently 

than Ace’s [999] and Tink’s [1000]. Additional clarification from anyone would be 

appreciated. 

Regarding the housing situation, if someone buys a house they are purchasing a commodity, 

M-C, by selling it for a profit they are essentially exchanging their commodity for 

money C-M. Here, M-C-M, the buyer of the house “lays out money in order that, as a seller, 

he may recover money.” 

If the original buyer of the house is doing so with the intention of it being an investment 

that he will later profit from, then wouldn’t it be M-C-M, not C-M-C as Ace and Tink stated? 

Message [1003] referenced by [1004] and [1007]. Next Message by Nazgul is [1085]. 

[1004] Ace: In response to Nazgul’s answer [1003] I still think that there was no way that 

the house buyer intended to buy the house for profit. He lived in it for 10 years. If he only 

had it a little amount of time before he sold it then I would agree, but this is a use value


purchase instead of a exchage value purchase. The man is just going to go and buy another 

house with it, so it is C-M-C. Just as Rudy said “It seems to me that if the person was looking 

to end up with money, that would be M-C-M, which is not so in this case because, again, the 

person needed the house anyway”. I think this is correct. 


[1007] Hans: How can someone’s intentions change the social relation? Nazgul makes 

a good point in [1003]. Assume someone buys houses, moves into them and lives in them for 

a year or two, while fixing them up, and then sells them again at a profit, as in [1996sp:306]. 

This is clearly M-C-M. Therefore very similar transactions are C-M-C or M-C-M according 

to the individual’s intentions? This does not sound right. 

In my judgment, the buying and selling of homes is part of the circuit of capital in the 

U.S.A. Some people are in it intentionally for the profits. For instance it seems that after 

the dot-com bubble investors were looking for more secure and tangible investments and 

therefore withdrew money from the stock market to buy houses. Others buy houses only in 

order to live in them. But even if they do not intend to make money, they do make money, 

and they are a part of the overall circuit of capital. They still spend many hours of their time 

to have nicely manicured lawns, so that they do not bring down the property values of their 

neighbors. 

Another relevant point is that the overwhelming majority of houses are mortgage-financed. 

If the owners can no longer afford the mortgage payments, they must sell their houses. This 

forces them to look at their home as an investment and not just a consumption good. 

The economic agents’ intentions are only one of the pieces of evidence one should look 

at; they are not themselves the criterion. 


[1010] Camhol: M-C-M, C-M-C. I believe that Tink, ACE, and Rudy are all wrong in 

their conclusions. Here is how I see it. 

If a person buys a car and then trades it for another after a few years it is a M-C-M. With 

the money he has he buys a car and receives a commodity. After some time, he trades this 

commodity in for another commodity. Since in this capitalist system we use money for all 

exchanges, the trade first becomes money and then with that money he buys another car. 

Clearly, M-C-M. 

If a person buys a house, then sells it ten years later. This also follows the car’s example 

of M-C-M. With money, he buys a house and then later sells that commodity to get more 

money. What he does with the money does not money. It only matters that he received 

money for a commodity he paid for. 

Lastly, the farmer is an example of the C-M-C. He starts off with a commodity (wheat), 

then receives money for said commodity (by selling it) and then turns that money into another 

commodity (wheat). 

Hans: You are getting different answers than the others because you are looking at this matter completely superficially, 

just looking at the circulation acts themselves and not at the underlying motivations and social connections. 

See [2003fa:342]. 

A worker does not start the circuit with money but with the sale of a commodity, namely, of his labor-power. 

Message [1010] referenced by [1011]. Next Message by Camhol is [1702]. 


[1011] Thugtorious: (graded A) M-C-M, C-M-C. In response to Camhol [1010] regarding 

the farmer analysis, I have one question: what is the use-value of C prime (the wheat) 

to the farmer? Is the farmer producing that wheat to feed his/her family and to survive? 

No, the farmer is producing the wheat to turn and sell in the market. Depending on where 

you start in your analysis, you can view any transaction as either M-C-M or C-M-C. Let me 

explain: in your analysis the farmer starts with a commodity, but let’s take a step back to 

last season. The farmer took the profit from his that crop to expand this year’s production 

and create more wheat. He/she did not cultivate the wheat and consume all of it him/herself. 

The wheat only had exchange value to the farmer. Now, considering last season, the circuit 

is M-C-M’. 

From what I understand of the differing circuits partly pertains to what the owner opts to 

do with the money. Hans did recently say that the intentions of the owner is not the only 

criterion. In relation to that, I have another question: does somebody take care of their yard 

to maintain the property value of their neighbor’s yard, or do they take care of their yard as 

a creative outlet of their energy? I can personally say that I know many people who have 

lived in thier house for over 20 years and beautify their property regardless of the impact on 

the value of their house. 

Hans: I think people usually underestimate how deeply capitalism has penetrated into all areas of life, even things 

which seem unrelated to the economy. 


Question 420 is 300 in 1998WI, 313 in 1999SP, 381 in 2002fa, 452 in 2007SP, and 465 in 

2008fa: 

Question 420 What does Marx mean by an “automatic subject”? 

(As Submitted:) When Marx’s talks 

[1009] Snickers: content A– form 95% about the “Automatic Subject” he is talk- 

The “Automatic Subject” Marx is talking ing about the value of capital. Han’s talks 

about is the value of capital. Hans explains about how the movement of value from 

that the movement of value from one form to one form to another M-C-M is how the 

another M-C-M is what makes the value of value of Capital is automatic. Throughout 

Capital automatic. Throughout this process this process capital never losses it value. 

capital never loses it identity. Marx explains Marx’s explains that value is subject to a 

that value is subject to a process where value process where value constantly alternates 

constantly alternates between money form between money form and commodity form. 

and commodity form. “Throughout this “Throughout this movement it repels itself 

movement it repels itself as surplus-value 

from itself as original value and thus val- 

as surplus-value from itself as original value 

orizes itself.” This surplus-value movement 

is its own movement and as a result the val- 

and thus valorizes itself.” Marx’s explains. 

orization has to be self-valorization. This This surplus-value movement is its own 

ability to add value to itself just by being 

value is the automatic part of the “auto- 

movement and as a result the valorization 

matic subject.” So in conclusion capital is has to be self-valorization. This ability to


not money or commodities but the value add value to itself just by being valued is the 

which assumes and strips off these partic- 

ular shapes. The self-valorizing circulation automatic part of the “automatic subject” So 

in conclusion capital is not money or com- 

of value is continous and thus automatic. modities but the value subjected onto them. 

Which concludes the definition of the automatic 

subject. The self-valorization circulation of value is 

continous and thus automatic. Which concludes 

the definition of the automatic subject. 

Hans: Although I edited your text quite a bit I tried to remain in the spirit of your original answer. Your original 

formulations “Marx talks about” and “Hans talks about” are too vague and not appropriate for written text. I also 

changed “capital never loses its value” into “capital never loses its identity,” and several other things. 

You seem to have looked at the answers to this question in the earlier classes, your first sentence is for instance 

very similar to [1999SP:178]. You elaborated on many things in new ways, but you also took over some of the 

mis-formulations of the earlier attempts. I can still recommend my own [1998WI:270]. 



Question 430 How does the abstraction Marx makes in the first sentence of 260:2/o differ 

from the ceteris paribus assumptions of modern economics? 

[1064] Geo: content A– form 95% The abstraction Marx makes in the first sentence of 

260:2/o differs from the ceteris paribus assumptions of modern economics by not setting 

or holding all else equal, but by simply leaving aside ‘the replacing of one use-value by 

another.’ Marx is setting aside the other circumstances and leaving only those relevant to 

the laws of simple commodity exchange. The ceteris paribus assumptions hold all other 

circumstances equal, Marx’s abstraction is not that complete but only use-values equal to 

emphasize the nature of the exchange. If use-values are left out here, then all that has really 

taken place was an equal exchange of different commodities, hence the ‘metamorphosis’ and 

‘mere change in the form of the commodity’. If use-values were returned to the example then 

a different set of outcomes may result, simply because the two parties may find themselves 

with different use-values for the same commodity. 

Hans: Your answer goes in the right direction. In mainstream sciences, everything depends on many different 

factors, and one can get a snapshot of this interlinked whole only by holding those things constant which do not 

matter for the question at hand. On the face of it, this seems an absurd approach: it is like trying to understand how 

a car drives by turning the left front wheel and holding everything else constant. 

Marxism and other depth realism do not see themselves as taking snapshots of a huge interconnected whole, 

but they begin with layers of forces that belong together and depend on each other. The economy is one layer, the 

weather may be another. In order to understand how the economy functions, assumptions are made that there are 

no hurricanes. I.e., the things which are abstracted from are the extraneous forces which may interfere but do not 

contribute to the inner working of the system under scrutiny. Every physicist makes a similar abstraction when they 

set up an experiment which shields the effect they are trying to measure from outside disturbances. 

The ceteris paribus assumptions of the mainstream take advantage of this stratification of reality into layers as 

well (otherwise their approach would be hopeless and, more generally, science as we know it would be impossible), 

but they do not admit that such a stratification exists. 

Message [1064] referenced by [2010fa:624]. Next Message by Geo is [1105]. 


Exam Question 431 is 307 in 1998WI, 341 in 2000fa, 359 in 2001fa, 391 in 2002fa, 405 

in 2003fa, 454 in 2004fa, 463 in 2007SP, 467 in 2007fa, 474 in 2008SP, 477 in 2008fa, 

549 in 2011fa, and 573 in 2012fa: 

Exam Question 431 Is exchange a transaction in which both sides gain? 

[1067] Matt: In the case of exchanges of use-values both sides of the transaction do gain. 

Marx explains this in his example of the wine producer and the corn producer. The man 

that produces wine is able to produce this commodity at a much more efficient rate than the 

farmer who produces corn. At the same time the corn producer is much more efficient at 

producing corn than wine. Now if each produces these products that don’t have a use-value 

to them but do to the other then these two farmers can trade and gain use-value at the most 

efficient level. On the other hand when we look at the exchange-value of something we see 

that there is no gain. Once again to explain this Marx uses the example of the wine producer 

and the corn producer. The man with the corn trades with the man with wine to a value 

of 50 and the man with wine trades the man with corn to the value of 50. This act would 

produce no increase in exchange-value either for one or the other. Marx states that “where 

there is equality there is no gain.” If some external circumstance comes to lessen or increase 

the value then equality is infringed and the exchange might become unfavorable. 


[1791] Hans: Gains from exchange hide exploitation. Of course both parties can gain 

and usually do gain in an exchange. This is common sense. But if you answered this question 

in the exam as “yes, both parties can gain,” you only got a C for this answer. 

This answer is insufficient because it is necessary to clarify here: as far as use-values are 

concerned, both parties gain; but as far as value is concerned, an exchange is a zero-sum 

game in the sense that whatever one party gains is lost by the other and vice versa. 

Why do I insist that you make this clarification? Because the common-sensical mind is 

tempted to conclude from the fact that both parties usually gain in an exchange that profits 

come from exchange. In Marx’s theory, of course, exchanging things does not add to their 

total value, therefore profits cannot come from exchange but are based on the exploitation 

of the laborers. Marx’s theory also says that capitalist exploitation is difficult to see. The 

failure to distinguish between use-value and exchange-value in the gains of an exchange is 

one of the common-sensical oversights which prevents people from seeing that capitalism is 

based on exploitation. 

(By the way, the argument given here does not have to assume that only equal values 

are exchanged. An exchange in which unequal values are exchanged results in a transfer 

of value between the transactors but not the creation or destruction of value. This is what 

the word “zero-sum game” means. Some of you think the labor theory of value says that an 

exchange will not happen when it is an unequal exchange. Unequal exchanges can happen 

and must happen in a market economy. The labor theory of value says about this: if unequal 

exchanges happen consistently, then there is a tendency to adjust the exchange proportions 

towards a more equal exchange by the re-allocation of production.) 

Message [1791] referenced by [2007SP:981], [2007fa:361], [2007fa:508], [2008SP:476], [2011fa:148], [2012fa:897], 

and [2012fa:1151]. Next Message by Hans is [1793].



Question 432 Show exactly where Condillac, in the above quote, confuses use-value and 

exchange-value. 

[1013] Pete: graded B+ Condillac is just confused in general. When he states, “We wish 

to part with a useless thing...to get one that we need,” he confuses our own preferences with 

those of others. It is all in who is looking at the issue. Boots with steel toes are useless to 

me, but to someone that works with heavy objects they are priceless, whereas ballet shoes 

would be useless to the worker guy. (This scenario just shows one example.) 

We cannot equate excess surplus as useless surplus. I don’t need any steel shoes but I 

have three pairs. That is profit and so those shoes are not useless – they are surplus and thus 

have a value. The Ballet shoes that I receive have a use-value to me. 

Hans: Condillac agrees with you that the amount of use-value of a given commodity depends on whom you ask. 

He says: “the value of a thing consists solely in relation to our needs.” 

Message [1013] referenced by [1039] and [1101]. Next Message by Pete is [1018]. 

[1039] Zone: graded A In post [1013], I believe that Pete missed the point of the question. 

He is talking about different use-values to different people, not addressing the question 

where Condillac confuses use-value and exchange-value. In the quote, Condillac states, “... 

if we really exchanged equal values, neither party could make a profit.” Here he is talking 

about exchange-value but means use-value. He goes on to say, “The value of a thing consists 

solely in relation to our needs.” Which affirms he is talking about use-value. In this Condillac 

assumes that value is created by exchange. This is not the case because value cannot be 

created in exchange, value is only created through production. And since exchange is not 

part of production it can not create value. 


[1068] Will: graded A– Condillac; Exchange-value vs. use-value. In the quote by 

Condillac he confuses the idea of use-value with exchange-value because he is trying to 

focus on the social aspect of a commodity and how one item could be worth more for one 

individual than another. Although, to contrast the idea that parties give less for a greater 

value, it may be of less value for that person, but the value the other person holds for that 

commodity could be greater than the other traders value. This is an exchange and no matter 

what a commodity will be traded equally in the eyes of a trader. For example look at a 

generator. To a person here in Utah it could be worth a little in terms of trade value, but for 

a person in Florida who doesn’t have power, a generator has a greater use value and hence a 

greater exchange value in the eyes of the person in Florida. In hindsight this creates a greater 

exchange value of that commodity and even though the person in Utah believes he is trading 

less for a greater value, the person in Florida may think the same. This overall makes the 

commodity equal in exchange-value and use-value. 


[1069] Matt: Condillac confuses use-value and exchange value when we states, “each 

of the two contracting parties in every case gives less for a greater value. . . ” If we really 

exchanged equal values, neither party could make a profit. Right here I think is where 

Condillac confuses the use-value of something by looking at its exchange-value. According 

to Marx, when you look at the exchange-value of something neither side gains. But when 

you look at the use-value of something the purpose of the exchange is to gain. So when you 


look at an exchange you can see that according to the exchange-value nothing is gained but 

when you look at he use-value of the exchange people are trading something of less value 

for something of more value to them. Essentially in this way they do profit. 

Hans: One can benefit therefore from an exchange in two ways: one can either gain exchange-value, or one can 

gain use-value while breaking even in exchange-value or even losing exchange-value. It is misleading to use the 

same word “profit” for both, as you do in your last sentence. In the sentence before last, you are using the word 

“value” to denote use-value. In a class about Marxism this is a no-no. Value is congealed abstract labor. Your own 

language does not reflect the analytical distinctions which you are making in the same text. 


[1101] Hans: Condillac’s confusion. The paragraph-long quote from Condillac in chapter 

Five is interesting because Condillac describes a contradiction in our every-day experiences: 

the same money which we receive from selling a commodity useless to us is sufficient 

to buy another commodity which may have a lot of use-value for us. This is a contradiction, 

because if you look at the money it seems that equivalents are exchanged, but if you look at 

the use-values it seems that each exchange has a favorable outcome to both parties. 

Condillac tries to resolve this contradiction by saying that the monetary point of view is 

incomplete and, as a rule, everbody always receives more in an exchange than they give. 

Pete in [1013] protests this outlandish conclusion by saying: if you give away something 

that is not useful to you, this does not mean that you give away a lesser thing, because this 

thing may be very useful to someone else. 

Zone [1039] tries to identify specific points where Condillac confuses use-value and 

exchange-value, as declared by Marx in a throw-away remark. Actually, I just noticed that 

the translation is bad: the German word is “durcheinanderwerfen”, i.e. Condillac throws 

together or confounds use-value and exchange-value, he fails to distinguish them. Zone arrives 

at the right answer despite this hurdle: whenever Condillac says that both sides gain 

value, this is true for use-value, but Condillac acts as if it was true for exchange-value as 

well. 

Will [1068] comes up with a solution which had already been drawn by Le Trosne, not 

seriously but, if Marx’s interpretation is right, in order to poke fun at Condillac’s outlandish 

conclusion: If both sides gain in an exchange, this means that both sides get the same thing 

out of it, ergo, exchanges are always equal. 

Matt illustrates in his answer [1069] how important it is to keep use-value and exchangevalue 

apart, because the statement “in an exchange, both parties gain value” is true for usevalue 

but false for exchange-value. 



Question 434 What does Marx mean when he says “commodities are not paid for twice 

over, once on account of their use-value, and a second time on account of their value”? 

[1077] Bboarder: Marx states “commodities are not paid for twice over.” Commodities 

are purchased because of their use value to the specific person buying the commodity. The 

buyer pays for the commodity, and that pays for the value and labor that was used to produce 

the commodity. The buyer does what he wants with the commodity and therefore he gains


use value out of his purchase, the use value will vary depending on what a private individual 

does with his purchase and will vary from individual to individual. Marx goes on to 

make another argument against Newman’s theory that “Commerce adds value to products,” 

however I think Marx’s first argument makes a very good point. 

Hans: You didn’t tie your answer closely enough into the twice-over formulation. This could be done along the 

lines: How much use the consumer gets out of the commodity depends entirely on him; he does not have to pay for 

this. He already paid for the commodity when he paid for the labor going into the commodity. Having to pay again 

according to how useful the commodity is would be a double payment. 



2004fa, and 537 in 2010fa: 

Question 435 How does Marx rebut the argument that exchange should be considered an 

act of production because the same products in the hands of consumers are worth more than 

in the hands of producers? 

[1015] Snowy: exchange is not production. Marx says that exchange is not production 

using the argument that exchange is conversion rather than production. “The merchant’s 

activity of converting the buyer’s money into stockings and the buyer’s activity of converting 

the merchant’s stocking into money cannot both be considered production, because each of 

these activities exactly undoes the other”. Also, exchange is not production because, if there 

is an equivalent exchange, no one extracts more value than he puts into it. The item is 

converted into money, for the seller, and the buyer’s money is converted into use-value. 

Hans: Your long quote is not from Marx but from Hans’s interpretation of Marx. Is this a correct interpretation? 

Whether Hans or Marx, you should not have just copied it down but elaborated on it, rephrased the same idea in 

your own words. 

You are right, exchange does not create value. But it increases use-values. Why does this not qualify as 

production? 



2007SP, 478 in 2007fa, 509 in 2009fa, 546 in 2010fa, and 562 in 2011fa: 

Question 440 What is the difference between a single shoemaker, who adds to the value of 

his leather by turning the leather into shoes, and a capitalist, who adds to the value of his 

money by investing it? 

[1078] Guerito: graded A Making Money Grow. It has been said that money doesn’t 

grow on trees; though in the view of the shoemaker it may appear to for the investing capitalist. 

The shoemaker uses his own time, talent, and energy to increase the value of his 

leather while the capitalist uses the time, talent, and energy of others to increase the value of 

his money. Simply investing didn’t make the money grow, labor made the money grow. In 

both circumstances, an increase in value was the result of labor. The key is that the capitalist 

didn’t perform any labor himself but rather relied on the labor of others. The difference 

between the shoemaker and the capitalist is thus who provides the labor. 



2011fa, and 591 in 2012fa: 


Question 443 Why does Marx say at the end of chapter Five “hic Rhodus, hic salta”? 

[1053] BonzoIsGod: graded A Hic Rhodus, hic salta. “‘Hic Rhodus, hic salta’ means 

that we want the capitalist to perform his dance before our eyes, so that we can see how 

he does it” (Ehrbar, 344). Hans explains that this phrase is not to be taken literally from 

Aesop’s fable that someone is boasting that they can do something they actually cannot. It 

is seen in society that the capitalist can complete his “task(s).” But Rhodes acts as his shield 

to cover up his actions that complete his “task(s).” Therefore, Marx uses the above phrase 

asking that the hidden process, by which value is turned into more value, be revealed. 



Question 449 Is it surprising, in the context of chapter Six, that the money-owner finds 

a commodity on the market “whose use-value possesses the peculiar property of being a 

source of value, whose actual consumption is therefore itself an objectification of labor, 

hence a creation of value”? 

[1142] Hans: An eagle in the living room. If you came home today and found an eagle 

perched atop the coat rack in the living room, you would probably be very surprised. 

But if you came home and saw the chandelier shattered on the floor, the ironing board 

tipped over, and bird poop all over the dining table, then the subsequent discovery of an 

eagle in the corner would no longer surprise you that much. 

This is the situation of Marx’s analysis in chapter Six. The indirect evidence is not a 

broken chandelier, but the fact that for two hundred years now the capitalists have gone on 

merrily to make money without working. Marx has reasoned far and wide how they can 

achieve this feat. After many pages of his usual laborious reasoning he has concluded: this 

is only possible if they have found a commodity on the market whose consumption generates 

more value than its own value. This is the commodity labor-power. 

Marx’s derivation of the labor-power in chapter Six, [270:1], is therefore not a surprise, 

but the only way to explain certain familiar phenomena of our everyday life – which themselves 

would be surprising had we not witnessed them for so long that we are taking them 

for granted by now. 

Once we have understood this, we also know the answer to question 466: why does the 

capitalist find the commodity labor-power on the market? Because without the commodity 

labor-power there would be no capitalist. 


[1547] Astclair: No it is not surprising, for without this commodity there would be no 

capitalist. The commodity found is Labor-power. Labor power is the only commodity which 

produces more value than its own value. 

Hans: This is the correct answer but I wish you had elaborated on it a little. Otherwise I am afraid the reader might 

not ‘get’ it. 


[1621] Avatar: graded A No, it is not really surprising that the money owner finds the 

commodity fitting the description in the question. The commodity in question is obviously


“labor power”. The functioning “cycle” of capitalism makes such a process inevitable. In 

simple commodity exchange like M-C-M’, with M’ greater than M, something needs to 

create the extra value. The value change can’t happen within the money form, and extra 

value can’t be bestowed merely through exchange. So, the change must come through the 

consumption, where the use-value of the commodity is realized. Labor is the source of 

value in commodities and its abstraction, labor power, is the objectified form or commodity 

version of labor. 

Message [1621] referenced by [2007SP:734]. Next Message by Avatar is [1623]. 

[1666] Karlwho: graded A– I feel it is surprising that there is a commodity that possesses 

the “peculiar property of being a source of value, whose actual consumption is therefore 

itself an objectification of labor, hence a creation of value.” Marx is of course referring to 

labor-power as a commodity. Marx states that for labor-power to be a commodity, certain 

conditions must be met. The owner of money is searching for a commodity, which he can 

consume, so that with the means of production, he can produce other commodities. Only 

through the production of commodities is value created. So in order for the capitalist to 

create value he needs a commodity (labor-power), which will help to produce commodities. 


Exam Question 450 is 247 in 1997WI, 321 in 1999SP, 374 in 2001fa, 422 in 2003fa, 482 


Exam Question 450 Chapter Six is not the first place where labor-power is discussed. 

Where was labor-power introduced first? But the discussion of labor-power in chapter Six 

introduces one fundamental new aspect of it which was not discussed before. What is it? 

[1128] Overlord: In chapter 6 We learn that labor power can be a commodity, but only in 

specific situations. When Marx states that labor power is a commodity he assumes that both 

the worker’s ability and willingness to work can be bought. In chapter 1 Labor power was 

described as an individual’s peak physical expenditure and the social effects it had. Value in 

this case was derived from this expenditure. 

Hans: It is difficult to understand your answer. Somehow I couldn’t quite get what you were driving at. It is like 

listening to a computer. Finally I realized that it is just a cut-and-past job from two different sources. Your first two 

sentences are a paraphrase of the following passage in the Annotations right after the question: 

Labor-power can become a commodity only under very specific historical conditions. Whenever 

Marx speaks of labor-power as a commodity, he assumes that not only the worker’s ability 

to work, but also his willingness to work can be bought 

Someone who reads on in the Annotations will see the conditions and understand why the willingness to work 

matters for them. But you do not pursue this point and therefore leave the remark about the willingness hanging in 

the air. 

Your third and fourth sentences are a paraphrase of the first three sentences of [2003fa:530]: 

The first time, before ch. 6, that labor power was introduced was right at the start of ch. 1. 

Marx first brought in labor power as an individual’s potential physical expenditure and the 

effects that it had socially. Value is derived from the expenditure of this labor power, Marx 

says, not from concrete labor. 

This paraphrase is close enough that I think you should have cited your source. You are lucky that this is an 

ungraded exam question. 



[1133] Manchu: In chapter 6 labour-power can appear upon the market as a commodity 

but is conditional based on certain precepts. Its possessor, the individual whose labourpower 

it is must offer it for sale as a commodity. He must, therefore have it at his disposal 

in liquid form. The second condition is that the labourer must be obliged to offer for sale as 

a commodity that very labour-power instead of being in the position to sell commodities in 

which his labour is incorporated. 

In chapter one 134:3/o it talked about simple labour power, which on an average, apart 

from any special development, exists in the organism of every ordinary individual. 

Hans: Designated exam questions should have short answers that “cut to the chase.” [2003fa:530] is good but 

almost too long, the bare-bones answer is my [1134]. 

You are quoting one of the earlier places where Marx uses the word “labor-power,” but it is not clear from this 

quote which role this concept plays in his theory. 


[1134] Hans: The bare-bones answer. Labor-power was already introduced in chapter 

One. It plays an important behind-the-scene role whenever there is commodity production, 

because abstract human labor, the substance of value, is the expenditure of human laborpower. 

But what is new in chapter Six is that labor-power is now itself a commodity. 

Message [1134] referenced by [1133], [2012fa:1140], and [2012fa:1453]. Next Message by Hans is [1142]. 

[1423] MK: Labor power was introduced in chp 1 however, in Chp 6 labor power is itself 

introduced as a commodity. 


[1428] Bboarder: If labor-power produces value, this does not automatically make laborpower 

itself a commodity. Labor-power can become a commodity only under very specific 

historical conditions. Whenever Marx speaks of labor-power as a commodity, he assumes 

that not only the worker’s ability to work, but also his willingness to work can be bought—so 

that the consumption of the labor-power by the buyer does not require any other coercion 

than that given by the market forces. The justification for this stronger requirement is that 

any other dependencies between the commodity producers than those springing from the 

commodity relations themselves are incompatible with the nature of commodity relations. 

Hans: Your answer does not address the question, although it is a literal quote from the paragraph in the Annotations 

right after this question, on p. 348. I will draw the necessary consequences. 


Question 453 is 311 in 1997ut, 321 in 1998WI, 322 in 1999SP, 377 in 2001fa, 425 in 

2003fa, 485 in 2007SP, 491 in 2007fa, 498 in 2008SP, 501 in 2008fa, and 524 in 2009fa: 

Question 453 One of the conditions under which the money owner can purchase laborpower 

in order to do M−C−M ′ is, according to Marx, that the labor-power must be sold 

by the worker him- or herself. Why this latter requirement? 

[1121] Hans: Why we are not slaves. The following is an excerpt of my [2001fa:267]. 

Please read it; it is an important point for the whole chapter Six. It not only explains the first 

condition in the answer to question 462 but also gives a better understanding of question 

454, and others. I said something similar in the Annotations in the last paragraph of p. 349, 

but this text here is perhaps a little clearer:


It is incompatible with the nature of commodity relations that there be any other dependencies 

between the commodity producers than those springing from the commodity 

relations themselves. This is why Marx introduces the additional requirement that no such 

other relations of dependence can be present. I.e., strictly speaking Marx is developing here 

the conditions not merely for labor power to be a commodity but for labor power to be 

a commodity in an environment in which the laws of commodity production can develop 

freely, i.e., in the absence of other direct dependencies among the producers. Under this 

strengthened requirement, relations in which the labor power is sold by someone other than 

the worker must be ruled out, because they presuppose that the seller of the labor power is 

able to force the worker, whose labor power he sold, to do the work—perhaps because this 

worker is a slave. The laborer himself must therefore be the one who sells his or her labor 

power. 

As a form of exploitation, slavery is inferior to capitalism because it relies on direct 

coercion which is not mediated by the market. Capitalism is so effective exactly because the 

market does all the coercing, while formally the laborer is free. The market is a much more 

effective motivator to work for the owners of the means of production than the slave driver’s 

whip. 


Question 454 is 249 in 1997WI, 313 in 1997ut, 323 in 1999SP, 357 in 2000fa, 378 in 



Question 454 Why are the conditions for terminating employment regulated by law instead 

of being left to the free market? Does this mean that the state protects the workers against 

the capitalists? 

[1117] Miron: Carl Marx states in Chapter 6 that the labour market functions similarly to 

other markets, but with several significant differences. These differences emerge because of 

the nature of labour. 

In the model created by Marx labour is, on one hand, the commodity sold by the worker 

and bought by the employer. On the other hand, the supply of labour is determined by the 

capacity for labour (which does not imply that the worker will be selling his labour, but is 

the necessary condition for this, as the very nature of a human demands daily supply). The 

latter fact most often implies the necessity for the worker to sell his labour – in order to 

maintain his subsistence. 

Another important distinction of labour from other commodities is that the “use-value 

of labour does not immediately pass into the hands of the buyer on the conclusion of the 

contract” [Marx, Capital, Chapter 6]. In other words, the employer cannot immediately 

receive profit from the worker’s labour. Therefore the payment for the labour cannot be 

done at once as well. When the worker starts the contract with the employer, he is in fact 

giving credit to the employer until the worker receives payment for his labour. As a result 

of such crediting a significant loss of wages related with the bankruptcy of capitalists takes 

place. 


Hans: The issue, in Marx’s text, is not bankruptcy of the employer, but indentured service and slavery of the 

employee. 


[1118] Tomek: This is a response to Miron’s [1117]...I believe that working conditions 

and especially conditions related to terminating employment have to be regulated by the 

government in order to avoid such loss of wages and economical misbalance on the market. 

On one hand, this measure is directed to securing the rights of the workers and guaranteeing 

the payment for their commodity (labour). Without proper regulation a lot of capitalists 

would be making profit on the time interval between the performance of labour by a worker 

and paying for this labour. While at labour market money, as usual, serves as the means of 

purchase and the means of payment (these two processes take place almost immediately), 

the time gap related with the nature of creating value with labour remains rather significant. 

Government regulation should take place in order to avoid misuse of the “credit” given by 

workers to the employers. But on the other hand, the same regulation is necessary to protect 

the actions of capitalists as well. Since the employer (in most cases) does not get the direct 

profit on buying someone’s labour, loss of finance may occur because of the sudden breaking 

of the contract from the worker’s side. Therefore, law regulations also have to take into 

account the interests of the capitalist. 

And finally, I believe that regulating labour market by the means of law is vital for the 

functioning of the whole production system. Since production is the main means of creating 

material values and increasing the common weal, any irregularities in the production 

and distribution process will result in the total worsening of economical conditions of the 

country (and possibly, world economy as well). Without exaggeration, the relations between 

employers and workers can be regarded as the main factor influencing this process. Therefore, 

economic stability cannot be realized without proper law regulation of employment 

relations, and especially the conditions for terminating employment. 


Question 457 is 250 in 1997WI, 316 in 1997sp, 314 in 1997ut, 325 in 1999SP, 381 in 

2001fa, 414 in 2002fa, 430 in 2003fa, 480 in 2004fa, 489 in 2007SP, and 505 in 2008fa: 

Question 457 The purchase of slaves and sale of their product is the purchase of a commodity 

which has the use-value of creating more value than it contains. Why is capitalism 

not based on slavery? 

[1122] PAE: Capitalism is not based on slavery because capitalism depends partly on the 

working class having money of their own and purchasing commodities for themselves with 

that income. Since slaves receive little to no actual money for their labor they are not able 

to consume many of the goods they are creating. I believe if slavery were still around today 

in our country the Untied States would primarily be an agrarian society, where our biggest 

commodity would be the exchange of slave labor (An example of this would be the South 

before the Civil war). Once you have a working class with disposable income you see the 

emergence of many more products in the market place that would not be there otherwise. 

With the emergence of more products, comes the rise in companies producing them and so


forth. So even though with slave labor it would be cheaper for a firm to produce commodities 

you would have a significant less amount of consumers purchasing the goods. 

I think a modern day example is many third world countries. Many of these countries 

today have an abundance of labor but since slave like conditions are present there is no 

middle/working class of people to help expand their economies. The workers earn just 

enough to buy food and maybe provide shelter. 

Hans: A Marxist would say that it is a fallacy to think that the capitalists depend on the workers buying their 

product. Capitalism is possible despite the fact that the workers can never buy back as much value as they produce. 

The money which they don’t get is happily spent by others. The third world countries are evidence against your 

thesis, not for it, because they are capitalist and not based on slavery. Marx’s explanation, as I understand it, why 

capitalism is not based on slavery, is given in [1121]. 


[1157] Thelonius: Capitalism, consumerism, and slavery. There are quite a few statements 

in PAE’s [1122] that I would challenge. First I would like to identify that capitalism 

is certainly facilitad by a more expanded form of commerce, but by nature capitalism is 

not consumerism. It is consumerism that you identified, not the structure of capitalism. 

The argument that capitalism is not based upon slavery stems mostly from the idea that it 

costs more to a capitalist to physically support a worker being responsible for each necessity 

(house, proper nourishment, clothing, transportation, etc...etc...), than if an employing capitalist 

is expected by law to provide a particular wage. When a worker receives a wage, what 

is done with it is purely up to that worker. In my opinion “slavery”, as a construct does seem 

to be very capitalistic by nature. 

If one simply emphasizes the importance of exploitation in the capitalist framework, it is 

easy to see how given the right legal conditions that exploitation can force free born wage 

workers to live in conditions not unrelated to how a slave would live. Miners in Tanzania, 

searching for Tanzanite would likely agree with me. These workers are limited to the type 

of work they can perform, where it can be perfromed, and how much influence they have 

on the price for each gem. The contractor compensates each miner around $1.00 for each 

sizable gem, the market pays nearer to $1000.00. Given the right conditions, these workers 

are slaves under capitalism. 



Multiple Choice Question 458 If Capitalism is M−C−M ′ then one might think a good 

way to perform this is to buy slaves, let them produce, and sell the products. But Marx says 

that slavery is not good capitalism. Why not? (here several answers can be checked, try to 

find the most fundamental answer from which other correct answers can be derived). 

(a) Slaves are like cattle or machines and do not produce value 

(b) Slaves cannot be fired when they are not good workers 

(c) Slaves are not allowed to buy things, therefore they do not form a good market. 

(d) Commodity production relies on formal freedom and equality, and the directly coercive 

relationship between slave owner and slave contradicts it. 

(e) Slave production cannot provide the skilled labor modern production methods need. 

[1434] Bboarder: (a) 


Hans: Slave labor produces value. 

Message [1434] referenced by [2004fa:369]. First Message by Bboarder is [397]. 

[1793] Hans: Do slaves produce value? This multiple-choice was on the Thursday exam. 

Slaves may be treated like subhumans, but the labor they perform can only be performed 

by humans, therefore they do produce value. Answer (a) is therefore wrong. 

(c) is also wrong. The capitalists are not dependent on high wages so that they can sell 

their things. If given enough time to adjust, the capitalist system can easily switch from 

producing things for a prosperous working class to producing luxury items for the rich or 

military equipment or goods for export, etc. 

Slavery must be ruled out as a form of capitalism not because of what happens in circulation 

but because the directly coerced slave production is much less efficient than wage labor. 

The most basic item is (d), and both (b) and (e) follow from (d). 


Question 461 is 253 in 1997WI, 319 in 1997sp, 328 in 1999SP, 385 in 2001fa, 418 in 

2002fa, and 434 in 2003fa: 

Question 461 a. What is labor-power? 

b. Which conditions must be met for labor-power to be a commodity sold by the laborer himor 

herself? 

c. Which historical developments must therefore have taken place before the beginning of 

capitalism? 

[1130] Overlord: A) Labor power is the potential mental and physical expenditure a 

worker possesses. 

B) First the worker’s ability and willingness to work can be bought. These conditions 

can turn labor power into a commodity for the worker to sell. Then the worker must define 

in time what his/her work will cost as well as selling the time in defined increments. The 

worker also has to be able to sale labor power just as other commodities are sold. A choice 

has to be made by the worker to work instead of producing other commodities. The worker 

must not have any other commodities to sell other that labor power in this case. 

C) Two specific event must have taken place. The possibility to own a commodity, specifically 

land. The ability to produce a commodity and the ability to sell that commodity for 

capital. Simultaneously the division of labor must have taken place. 

Hans: Not a good answer. Ownership of land has been one of the greatest obstacles to labor-power becoming a 

commodity. 


[1131] MK: Labor power is the mental and physical capabilities existing in a human 

being, which he exercises when he produces a use-value. Labor power is also a commodity– 

a special commodity whose use-value is itself being the source of value. Thus, when labor 

power is consumed, value is created. 

Labor power can be a commodity under two conditions– First, if in fact its owner, the 

laborer, sells it on the market. Buyer and seller of labor power represent themselves in the


market as equals. And, secondly, if the owner of labor power, (the laborer), is obliged to sell 

it in the market. 

What it is that determines the seller and the buyer of labor power has a social and historical 

basis. Which is the advent of bourgeois society. 

Commodity production precedes the advent of capitalism. Older forms of society also 

had commodity exchange. However, only under capitalism does it become the prevalent 

form of production. Money also precedes capitalism. Money existed as an equivalent of 

commodities,as a means of payment, or as a store of value. Capital, on the other hand, came 

into existence only when “the owner of the means of production and subsistence meets in 

the market with the free laborer selling his labor power.” Thus, capital appears only with the 

commodification of labor power. 

Hans: Good. 


Question 462 is 281 in 1996sp, 328 in 1998WI, 419 in 2002fa, 435 in 2003fa, 485 in 


in 2010fa, and 611 in 2012fa: 

Question 462 Which two sets of conditions must be satisfied for labor-power to be a commodity? 

[1079] Claire: Labor-Power as a Commodity. Marx gives two sets of conditions which 

must be satisfied for labor-power to be a commodity. 

The first condition is that only the laborer can sell his own labor. Marx says this by stating, 

“labor-power can appear on the market as a commodity only if its possessor, the individual 

whose labor-power it is, is also the one who offers it for sale” [270:3/o]. The possessor must 

have the labor-power at his disposal for it to be a commodity in a free exchange. 

The second condition in which must be satisfied for labor-power to be a commodity is 

“that the owner of labor-power, instead of being able to sell commodities in which his labor 

has been objectified, must rather be compelled to offer for sale as a commodity that very 

labor-power which exists only in his living body” [272:1]. Instead of selling a product, the 

laborer is forced to sell his own labor-power. 

Message [1079] referenced by [1089] and [1126]. Next Message by Claire is [1146]. 

[1089] Snowy: labor-power is a commodity when... There are two necessary social 

conditions needed in order for labor-power to be a commodity. 

First, the person that is selling labor-power as a commodity must own his own person, 

“the individual whose labor-power it is, is also the one who offers it for sale”. The seller and 

the owner of money must meet at the market as legal equals. The seller must be willing to 

put his labor/property at the buyer’s disposal for a specific time period, so as not sell all of 

his labor-power (which would be selling himself). Also, the laborer must alienate himself 

from his labor in order to claim his rights to it. 

Second, a person must not be able to sell the commodity that his labor produced, but 

rather he is able to sell his labor-power. This happens when a laborer can not supply the 

materials and/or resources needed to create the commodity. “The owner of labor-power, 


instead of being able to sell comoodities in which his labor has been objectified, must rather 

be compelled to offer for sale as a commodity that very labor-power that exists only in his 

living body”. 

Hans: Your rendering of Marx’s first point is not quite accurate. Marx’s condition excludes the situation of a slaveowner 

selling the labor-power of his slaves. But in your formulation this is not excluded, since the slave-owner does 

own his own person. 

By the way, immediately after submitting this answer, Snowy realized how similar it is to Claire’s [1079], and 

requested it to be reclassified as ungraded. 


[1100] Karlwho: graded A In Capital, Marx enlightens us by showing that there are two 

sets of conditions that must be met in order for labor-power to be a commodity. 

(1) Labor-power can only come to the market if its owner brings it to the market for sale. 

(2) The second condition Marx points out is that you must bring your labor-power to the 

market if you do not have the means of production whereby you can get your subsistence. 

This first condition is obvious. A commodity is something brought to the market for sale 

or exchange. So in order to make labor-power a commodity the owner of it must bring it 

to the market for sale. For the possessor of the labor-power to bring his labor-capacity, he 

must be the “free proprietor” of it. Then the owner of money and the owner of labor-power 

meet in the market, equal as owners of commodities, except with the difference that one is 

selling and one is buying. The owner of the labor-power can only sell it as a commodity for a 

limited time. If the seller were to sell his labor-power indefinitely as a commodity, he would 

be selling himself and in the process making him a commodity for sale and as a commodity 

he has become a slave. In order to prevent such a catastrophe from occurring the possessor 

of the labor-capacity must recognize and treat his labor-power as his own property. He does 

this by placing his labor-power on the market temporarily, so he can always hold his rights 

to the ownership of his labor-power. If the seller of labor-power were to always have his 

labor-power on the market, he is always placing his labor-power at the disposal of the buyer 

and turn over his rights to that labor-power. 

According to Marx the second condition is that instead of selling commodities you have 

made with your labor-power as a means of subsistence, you need to bring your labor-power 

to the market, so someone with the means of production can buy your labor-power to make 

commodities for sale in the commodity market. Because everyone needs to subsistence to 

live, one must produce commodities to exchange for money, which is in turn exchanged for 

food, clothing, shelter, etc. If one doesn’t have the capability to produce commodities, then 

one must bring the only thing he has to the market, his labor-power. In order to turn money 

into capital, the owner of money must come to the market to purchase some labor-power 

whereby he can make commodities. 

These two conditions, if they are met, make labor power a commodity. 

Hans: The first condition is not as obvious as you think. Marx distinguishes between the (immediate) possessor of 

the labor-power, i.e., the person who has to do the work, from the (legal) owner of the labor-power, who might be 

a different person owning the laborer as a slave. Marx excludes the situation in which owner and possessor are not 

one and the same, i.e., slavery. 

Message [1100] referenced by [1126] and [2007fa:635]. Next Message by Karlwho is [1160].


[1126] MK: 1. The workers are free proprietors of their own labor capacity as commodity 

– and this includes that labor-power be differentiated from the rest of self – that the workers 

are not slaves. 

2. The workers cannot produce commodities independently of capital–that capital has 

expropriated the means of production. 

Hans: I like this terse reformulation of the earlier answers because it emphasizes the political, class-struggle dimension 

of these two conditions. According to [1079], [1089], or [1100] it might as well have been the the individual 

misfortune of the laborer that he or she does not have access to the means of production, instead of it being the 

systematic denial of their birth right. 

Message [1126] referenced by [1308] and [1396]. Next Message by MK is [1131]. 

[1132] Manchu: Most of this was answered in my earlier submission without realizing 

there was an actual question for this... 

1. Its possessor, the individual whose labour-power it belongs to must offer the labor 

power for sale as a commodity. He must, therefore have it at his disposal in liquid form. 

2. The second condition is that the labourer must be obliged to offer for sale as a commodity 

that very labour-power instead of being in the position to sell commodities in which 

his labour is incorporated. They must be willing to sell the power itself. 

Hans: I guess by “they must be willing” you mean: “they must have no other choice but”. 

You must not be following the class discussion if you are not aware that this question exists. 


[1394] Zone: graded B+ In order for labor-power to be sold as a commodity, two sets of 

conditions must be satisfied. The first is the condition that the worker must be willing, or 

forced as in capitalism, to take hist labor-power to the market and sell it to the capitalist. 

The second condition is the worker must not be able to produce a subsistence bundle for 

himself, but rely on the capitalist to provide the means of production to do so. Since the 

capitalist owns all the means of production it is nearly impossible for the worker to find a 

way to provide the basic necessities of life without selling himself to the capitalist. These 

two sets of conditions show that the worker is forced to sell his labor-power to the capitalist 

in order to survive. 

Hans: The first condition is not his willingness but his right to sell himself. 


[1396] DarkKnight: graded A Labor-power as a commodity. In order for labor-power 

to be a commodity, two conditions must be satisfied: 

1) The worker owns the labor-power he is offering to the capitalist, or in other words, 

he is not a slave (see MK’s response in [1126]. Marx states that the exchange is between 

equal partners: “[The owner of the labor power] and the owner of money meet in the market 

and enter a relation with each other as equally empowered commodity owners. The only 

difference between them is that one is a buyer, the other a seller; both are therefore equal in 

the eyes of the law.” (Annotations, page 350) 

2) The worker does not own the means of production. MK (again in [1126]) includes the 

social dimension of this condition: “capital has expropriated the means of production.” The 

worker, lacking the option of producing commodities of his own for use as exchange-values 

on the market, must therefore sell his labor-power. 



[1421] MK: Workers are the free proprietors of their own labor capacity as commodity, 

this includes that labor power be differentiated from the rest of the self, that the workers 

themselves are not slaves. Thus the workers cannot produce a commodity independent of 

capital– that capital has expropriated the means of production. 


[1447] Bubba: graded A Conditions for commoditization of labor-power. For laborpower 

to be a commodity, the laborer must represent himself on the market as a free agent, 

prohibited from selling himself into slavery or indentured servitude, and legally the equal to 

the buyer of his labor-power. Second, the laborer must be obliged to sell his labor-power. 

The former condition is necessary because capitalism more effectively exploits the laborer 

than slavery, since the laborer has an economic (not just a coercive) motivation to work 

hard. The latter condition arises from the class relations under which the laborer has no 

access to the means of production that would allow him to expend his labor-power on his 

own commodities he could then sell in the market. 


[1451] ADHH: graded A The first condition that must be satisfied for labor-power to be a 

commodity is that the laborer must be free to sell his/her own labor. The worker must be the 

one who offers it for sale. 

The second condition is that the laborer must be compelled to sell his/her labor-power 

because he cannot sell the commodity his labor has produced because he does not own the 

means of production. 

Hans: You had: “the person who owns the labor-power must be the one who offers it for sale.” I changed it into 

“The worker must be the one ...” because this is clearer (and your in-class answer was indeed clearer on this point). 


[1470] Snowy: I wrote originally: 

The two sets of conditions in order for labor-power to be a commodity are: 

1- the person must own his own labor 

2- The person must sell his labor to produce something that he wouldn’t have the means 

to produce 

My resubmission is as follows: 

The two sets of conditions in order for labor-power to be a commodity are: 

1-the worker must own his own labor, and the labor-power must be separate from selfthe 

worker cannot be a slave. 

2- the worker must sell his labor independently of capital- he cannot have the means to 

produce capital, but must sell his labor in order to produce. 

Hans: Leave the capital out. Not all means of production are capital. 


[1485] Thelonius: The two sets of conditions cited by Marx as being neccesary for laborpower 

to act as a commodity are; 1) An individuals propriety over their own labor-power, and 

2) The proprietor of their own labor-power cannot have access to the means of production. 

The sale of labor-power as Marx describes it must be done by the compulsion of necessity


[272:1]. Concisely stated, these are the two conditions Marx insists are neccesary for laborpower 

to act as a commodity. 


[1503] Ace: graded A The two sets of conditions that must be satisfied for labor-power to 

be a commodity are first, the person must be a “free proprietor” of his labor power. Not only 

does he have to own his labor power but the owner of the labor-power can only sell it as a 

commodity for a limited time. If there was no time limit in the agreement between capitalist 

and laborer then the capitalist that is looking for labor on the market can take ownership of 

the labor power by purchasing labor power for an unlimited amount of time or thus making 

the laborer a slave. 

The second requirement is that the seller of the labor power must not have the means of 

production. If the laborer has means of production then he would take advantage of this 

because if he does not then he will have to take the only thing that is worth anything to the 

labor market and that is his own labor power. If the laborer has the means of production then 

he is able to become a capitalist and make money without having to use his labor power. 

So Marx states that no one with the means of production will let this opportunity of making 

money without working pass them by. 

Hans: Marx was talking here of the worker’s access to the means of production for his own labor, not the worker’s 

control over the means of production of other laborers. This access will not enable him to be a capitalist, but a seller 

of the commodities he himself produced, so that he can get a full equivalent of the value his labor produced. 


[1536] PAE: Two sets of conditions that have to be fulfilled in order to have labor power 

be a commodity are: 1) The laborer must be able to control and freely sell his/her own 

labor power. If it is a slave situation it does not work and labor would not be considered a 

commodity. 2) The labor must be able to feed him/herself, provide shelter and other basic 

things in order to sustain himself as a laborer. If a worker is starving they cannot provide 

labor. After the worker has the ability to produce labor power he/she is able to enter the 

market place and offer their labor power as a commodity. 

Hans: Your second condition is a little botched up. 


[1548] Astclair: The first condition is that, the laborer must be the owner and seller of 

his/her own labor power. The second condition is, one’s own labor power must be brought 

to the market, and sold to the money owner, if you lack the necessary means of production 

to combine with your labor power in order to create a commodity yourself. 


[1550] Rudy: graded A Conditions for Commodity. The first condition that must be 

met for labor-power to be a commodity is that the seller must own the labor-power for 

his/herself. Just as owners represent commodities in the market, so too must the owner be 

the sole possessor of his/her own labor-power. Marx summarizes this as “Free[dom] to” sell 

one’s own labor power. This requirement rules out slavery because it presents an additional 

coercive element that cannot exist in free capitalist commodity exchange. 

In addition, if the seller is to sell his/her own labor-power, then he/she must not have the 

means of production. Hans in [2004fa:311] explains that, “..otherwise they would sell their 

products, if anything, and not their labor-power.” Marx calls this “freedom from”, referring 


to the laborers freedom from the means of production. It is an ironic choice of words as 

this condition forces the seller to sell his/her labor power in order to meet subsistence needs, 

creating a dependence on the capitalist. 

When these conditions are met, the seller is able to sell labor-power to the capitalist. 


[1559] JJ: graded A Labor-power as a commodity. Two conditions must be satisfied for 

labor-power to be classified as a commodity. First is the laborer (the owner of labor-power) 

must be willing to trade his/her commodity (labor-power) on the market. In order to trade on 

the market one must own his/her commodity, hence a slave cannot sell their labor-power in a 

capitalist market. The second condition states that a laborer must trade his/her labor-power 

if he/she does not have access to the means of production. In other words money does not 

grow on trees, one must work by the sweat of one’s own brow. A laborer must work or 

consume their labor-power in order to survive in the capitalist economy or own the means 

of production. 

Hans: Since everybody has to work in order to live, nobody should be cut off from the means of production as 

people are in capitalism. 


[1574] Gza: graded A Marx outlines two sets of conditions for labor-power to be a commodity. 

The first condition is that the laborer must be free and sell labor in a limited timeframe 

requiring several preconditions. Labor-power must be sold by the laborer him/herself 

or there would not be a free exchange of commodities. Marx follows this point by arguing 

that there also must be equality in the status of the seller and buyer. The only difference between 

the two parties is their position of being a buyer and a seller. Lastly, the sale of labor 

must be temporary because if the laborer sells all his/her labor at once he/she would be selling 

his/herself, violating the condition of free exchange. This means the sale of labor-power 

should not abandon the rights of ownership of the laborer’s labor-power. 

The second condition allows the “money owner” to find labor-power through the laborer/owner 

of labor-power being compelled to sale labor-power in itself and not some product 

of his/her labor-power. This requires the worker to be free in that he/she can “dispose” 

of his/her labor-power as his/her own commodity and that he/she has no other commodities 

for sale. 


[1631] Nazgul: graded A Marriage. The marriage of labor-power and commodity is a 

beautiful thing. In order for labor-power to take on the commodity name, two conditions 

must first be met. The first condition is that labor-power must come to the market place, a 

coming out party if you will. Commodities are the reflection of social relationships among 

people, these social relations occur in the market place. 

Labor-power is only realized when put into action, therefore the second condition is that 

the individual does not have the means of production to sustain the labor-power into action. 

The laborer therefore must enter the market place with the intent to offer their labor-power 

because they have not the means to put their labor-power into action where it can become a 

commodity. Once the above occurs the laborers labor-power can now take on the commodity 

name. 

Next Message by Nazgul is [1744].


[1665] Karlwho: graded A Marx gives two conditions that must be satisfied in order for 

labor-power to be a commodity. The first is that the laborer must be free to sell his labor 

power. This means that the laborer must be the one selling the labor power. It also means 

that the laborer and the buyer of labor power must be equal legally. This first condition also 

implies that the seller of labor-power only sells it for a limited time only, not once and for 

all. The second condition that must be satisfied, according to Marx, is that the laborer must 

not have access to the means of production. If the laborer did have access to the means of 

production, then he would be producing commodities for sale, instead of selling his laborpower. 

This condition means that the worker would have to have access to products already 

available to be able to produce commodities himself. It also suggests that before the laborer 

can produce anything, (assuming he has the means of production) he must first have things 

to consume. Lastly, this second condition means that in order for the laborer to produce 

commodities, the commodities must be sold before the laborer reaps the benefits of his 

production 


[1697] Overlord: The two sets of conditions that must be satisfied are: 

1. The laborer must be willing and able to offer his/her labor power for sale. This means 

that he/she is the owner of the labor power and they are not owned by a slave owner selling 

slave labor. 

2. From the annotations the labor power must be the only thing that the laborer is offering 

for sale. No other commodity can be offered. This will force the laborer to offer labor power 

by depriving them of necessary conditions to go into production themselves. 


[1699] Aaron: Labor-power is simply the ability to do work and in itself is not a commodity. 

When the worker and capitalist combine where the worker offers willingly his/her 

labor-power to the capitalists as a commodity, and the worker owns his labor-power and is 

at their disposal. Also the worker must be divorced from the means of production and cannot 

alone sell produced commodities without the capitalist. As Marx states p351 “that the 

owner of labor-power, instead of being able to sell commodities in which his labor has been 

objectified, must rather be compelled to offer for sale as a commodity that very labor-power 

which exists only in his living body”. 

Hans: You are fortgetting that there are societies in which people were not allowed to determine how they want to 

use their “simple” ability to do work. 


[1704] Camhol: For labor power to be a commodity it needs to have a use-value and an 

exchange value. Its use-value determines if a producer can add labor to its production. The 

exchange-value gives the labor a money equivalency for the producer. 


[1706] Xerho: graded B “Which two sets of conditions must be satisfied for labor-power 

to be a commodity”? 

1. There must be an open market available in which both the buyer and seller of labor 

power are equals. 


2. There needs to be someone who is willing to buy, and someone who is willing to sell 

labor power. 

Hans: These conditions happen when under very specific social relations are in place. 


[1717] Jingle: graded A The two sets of conditions that must be satisfied for labor-power 

to be a commodity are: 

1) Labor power can only come to the market if its owner brings it to the market for sale. 

The owner has to bring the commodity to the market for sale to make the labor power a 

commodity. The owner of the money and the owner of labor power meet in the market, 

equal as owners of commodities. Except one is buying and one is selling the commodities. 

2) Marx says that you must bring your labor power to the market if you do not have the 

means of production where you can get your subsistence. Marx says that instead of selling 

commodities you have made with your labor power as a means of subsistence. You need 

to bring your labor power to the market, so someone with the means of production can buy 

your labor power to make commodities for sale in the commodity market. 


[1926] Danske: in class answer For labor power to be a commodity it must be; 

1) Offered for exchange by the person that will work (ie. not offered by another such as 

a slave’s labor) and be available for the use by others, 

2) The worker has no access to the means of production him/her self and must exchange 

labor-power for subsistence. 

resubmission My answer covers most of the basic points. However Marx points out that 

the seller of labor-power is willing [Annotations 348:4] to sell his/her labor-power. Also that 

the buyer and seller are equals in the eye of the law. These two points further expand the 

idea that the worker has a “choice” and “willingly” sells labor-power. Marx makes it clear 

that it is not because of choice but rather out of a lack of choice. The worker has no other 

option to use labor-power without access to means of production to subsist. 


Question 466 is 489 in 2004fa and 498 in 2007SP: 

Question 466 Why does the money-owner find wage-labor on the market—exactly the commodity 

he needs to become a capitalist? 

[1102] Ace: graded B The capitalist finds the laborer which matches his exact commodity 

because there are many people that own their own labor power and do not have the means 

of production. When the capitalist goes to the market he finds a seller of labor and the 

capitalist buys the laborer’s labor power, which is M-C. The next thing that happens is that 

the capitalist puts the laborer to work and produces his product which he turns and sells for 

a higher price M’ so M-C-M’. So the exploitation of labor is what makes the capitalist able 

to sell the product he produces. The capitalist has to buy the labor power, but sell for the 

product of labor. So as long as the laborer is willing to sell his labor power and the capitalist 

is willing to buy it then the capitalist will always have labor power for the commodity he 

needs.


Hans: If the conditions that force the laborer to enter such an unfavorable bargain were not met, then there would 

be no capitalists. It is like asking: why do alcoholics always find a way to get more booze? See also my [1142]. 

Message [1102] referenced by [2007SP:743]. Next Message by Ace is [1268]. 

Question 477 is 283 in 1996sp and 524 in 2008fa: 

Question 477 How is the value of labor-power determined? Explain what it means that 

“the determination of the value of labor-power contains a historical and moral element.” 

What does the word “moral” mean here? Doesn’t Marx imply with this that the value of 

labor-power can be just about anything? Is there any scientific insight in this? 

[1092] Snowy: the value of labor-power. Labor-power’s value comes from the amount 

of labor-time needed to produce and reproduce itself. “The value of labor-power is the value 

of the means of subsistence necessary for the maintenance of its owner.” The historical and 

moral elements to this defintion are spoken of because subsistence must be defined. “in a 

given country at a given period, the average amount of the means of subsistence necessary 

for the worker is a known datum”. The means of subsistence must be sufficient to sustain 

the worker’s health and strength and be paid for by the worker’s income. And, according 

to Marx they vary because they are based on different time periods and countries. If the 

price of labor-power falls below the cost of subsistence, then it falls below its value, since 

the labor-power cannot be maintained at a normal rate. The word moral refers to something 

nonphysical. Marx implies that labor-power can be just about anything due to its wide 

encompassing definition throughout time and specific to a country. There is a scientific 

insight in this definition because Marx takes into account that throughout time subsistence 

has varied. This definition implies that one must research the specific country and history in 

order to understand the value labor-power has in each case. 

Hans: You are stressing the variability of the moral element in the standard of living which counts as the worker’s 

acceptable ordinary level of means of subsistence. But equally important is that from the point of view of the 

economist this standard of living is given. It is not determined by economic forces (demand and supply, prices) but 

by broader cultural forces. 


[1095] Thugtorious: graded A I agree with much of Snowy’s answers [1092] pertaining 

to almost every element of the question. However, I think that there is another scientific 

aspect of Marx’s analysis that he/she left out. Now, the historical perspective of time/place 

and its relation to subsistence is true and most certainly scientific, but there is a common 

element throughout time that seems to me to be more scientific. Marx realized that the value 

of labor came from the subsistence of the laborer. Much like an automobile, if you don’t put 

gas in it, it won’t run! You do not necessarily have to change the oil, wash and wax it, clean 

the interior, or do any other basic maintenance. But, if you do want to drive that vehicle, you 

must put gas in it. The same analogy can be applied to a worker. The worker can work in 

the nude, doesn’t need to shower or shave, and even doesn’t need to go to the doctor for a 

regular check-up, but if you do not feed that worker he/she will die! 

This fact of backward linkages with the value of labor is very scientific from my perspective. 

Many might argue that a lot of Marx’s theories pertaining to value being derived 

from labor are purely theoretical. However, in this analysis, Marx shows that the value of 

labor-power is a scientific process of consumption and subsistence. 

Hans: Yes, whenever there is a scientific law, there is a very real mechanism underlying it. 



Question 481 is 269 in 1997WI and 589 in 2010fa: 

Question 481 Marx says elsewhere that labor unions are necessary for workers to be able 

to receive a wage which corresponds to the value of their labor-power and is not below it. 

Can you bring arguments from chapter Six to support this? 

[1878] Hans: Additional question about role of the trade unions. Since Unions were 

discussed in [1835], [1858], and [1872], I added Question 481 to the list of presently assigned 

questions. The “elsewhere” is reproduced in the appendix of the Vintage edition of 

Capital, see p. 1069/1070. Marx writes here that trade Unions cannot change the law of 

value which will always restrict the level of wages to the reproduction costs of the laborpower, 

but: 

“They know, of course, that a change in the relation of supply and demand 

produces a change in the market price. However, on the one hand, the 

occurence of such a change is very different from the one-sided assertion by 

the buyer, in this case by the capitalist, that such a change has occurred. On 

the other hand, there is a wide difference between the demand and supply 

rate of wages, or the rate which the fair operation of exchange would give, 

if the buyer and seller of it were on equal terms, and that which is, or would 

be compelled, if the employer dealt with each man ‘singly, and obtained a 

reduction by exploiting the accidental necessities of single laborers (which 

are independent from the general relation of supply and demand)’.” 

(The part between single quotes is quoted from T. J. Dunning. 

Please explain in simple words what Marx is talking about here. 

Here is the full updated list of questions assigned from now until Friday, Dec 9, at 3 am: 

1, 2, 3, 84, 111, 158, 159, 161, 180, 183, 184, 186, 481, 636 

This is the last regular homework assignment. No other assignments are presently accepted. 

Hans. 


[1910] Pete: graded A The firm is not stupid. Of course they would like to negotiate with 

each worker individually to get the best deal they can. If they do that, the wages would be 

low because the firm would offer a low wage, the worker would take it because it was a 

few cents higher than the one he has now. Then the firm tells the worker that it is against 

company policy to speak about wages so if the worker does he is fired! 

In Karl Marx Capital page 1070 states, “...workers combine in order to achieve equality 

of a sort with the capitalist in their contract concerning the sale of their labour. This is the 

rationale (the logical basis) of the trade unions.” Marx also stated. “The value of labourpower 

is ‘regarded by the workers themselves as the minimum wage and by the capitalist 

as the uniform rate of wages for all workers in the same trade’.” This is the very reason


that Unions have minimums they will allow their members to accept for wages. This does 

not prohibit “scabs” from undercutting the union workers. A scab is a worker who maybe 

belongs to a union or was never in one and takes the job for less than contract wage. They 

are the ones who cross the picket lines during a strike. 

The Unions are very weak in our country. In the 1930s they were very strong. They 

were created to stop “sweatshops,” child labor, low wages, and conditions in the workplace. 

Nowadays the capitalist tells their workers those unions are blasé and listen to them (the 

capitalist) for the finest benefits. That is like the Red Riding hood story. We are being led to 

slaughter. 

Message [1910] referenced by [1932]. First Message by Pete is [59]. 

[1932] Guerito: graded C Labor Power and Unions. The worker will never receive a 

wage fully equal to the value of his/her labor-power or the capitalist would cease to exist. 

I think the key word in this question is “corresponds;” the goal of the union is to raise 

wages that more accurately represent the value of the labor-power being provided. Both 

the capitalist and the worker need money to buy the necessities to live, ironically, both are 

surviving off of the labor-power of the worker. The capitalist profits from the difference in 

the value gained from the labor and the wage paid. Pete points out [1910] that firms prefer 

to negotiate wages individually to keep the wages as low as possible, they are in business to 

make a profit. Chapter 6 talks about the minimum required for the wage-worker to survive. 

This minimum is the amount the capitalist tries to get away with and generally succeeds if 

the bargaining is done individually. The union exercises their power in numbers and tries to 

get as close a wage to reflect the value of the labor-power supplied, even though still below 

the actual value. 

Hans: You are a little mixed up with the definitions. The value of the labor-power is the amnount the workers need 

to survive, not the minimum, but assuming some customary working-class standard of living. In other words, the 

value of labor-power is not the same as the value produced by the labor-power during the day. Capitalism would 

cease to exist if the capitalists had to pay their workers a full equivalent of the value they are producing. But it is 

possible for them to pay their workers the value of their labor-power and still make handsome profits. 

Final Grading Note by Hans: You seem to have large gaps in your understanding of Marx, not only evidenced 

here but also in [1545]. 

First Message by Guerito is [257]. 


2003fa, 506 in 2004fa, 531 in 2008fa, 554 in 2009fa, 591 in 2010fa, 609 in 2011fa, and 

635 in 2012fa: 

Question 483 Argue why the commodity the worker sells is labor-power, and not labor. 

[1127] BBQ: Labor power. Labor is the source of all value. Workers sell their labor 

power (Labor, virtually any kind of work-effort, is an abstraction, the root. Labor power is 

a saleable commodity. It is the potential ability to work and create exchange value) to add 

value to commodities for more or less subsistence wages. In doing so, workers themselves 

become commodities. Working people must sell themselves as things, in order to continue 

to exist. And workers begin to measure their human value in terms of the commodities they 

produce. 

Hans: The worker cannot be selling labor, because his labor-power is not the only ingredient of the labor process. 

Means of production are necessary too. 


Message [1127] referenced by [2008fa:1004]. Next Message by BBQ is [1469]. 


2010fa, 644 in 2011fa, 673 in 2012fa, and 627 in Answer: 

Question 490 Why is the day taken as unit of labor-power, instead of hour or week? 

[1139] Pisciphiliac: graded A– The daily measure of labor-power. A day is taken as the 

unit of labor-power, because it is the most logical unit available. It is simply not conceivable 

for laborers to work a week-long shift, nor would they want to. We don’t want to use an 

hour as our unit, because it would be difficult to track / observe the results. 

A day works out best and is broken down into two parts. The first part of a laborer’s day 

is necessary to recoup (work off) the wages paid to the laborer. The second part of the day 

is where a capitalist makes the profits. With the laborer’s wages paid in the first part of the 

day, the labor output profit is realized free and clear, without a payment to the laborer for his 

/ her time. Measuring the labor in this manner is the most consistent option available. 

Message [1139] referenced by [1340] and [2010fa:667]. Next Message by Pisciphiliac is [1259]. 

[1148] Keltose: graded B– I think that the day is measured as a unit labor of power because 

as Marx states, that if it takes one 6 hours to complete the job, then the necessary part of his 

work day is 6 hours. However he also states that with that notion the exact time is not given 

for the length of the work day. I think that it is interesting that this be brought up, because 

in many jobs such as factories, productivity is measured by how much you do in one hour 

of work, and thus usually paid in hourly increments. Therefore, the capitalist wants not only 

the necessary labor, but also the surplus. Because his marginal rate of return is increasing at 

even a greater rate. 

Basically, if the necessary time is 6 hours, the capitalist gets what he wants out of the 

worker in 6 hours, but it’s a bonus to get them for 8. 

Hans: You don’t understand the concept of “necessary” part of the working-day. (But enjoy the slack of the 

working-day while it lasts.) 


[1216] Hans: The unpleasant realities of wage labor. Although this seems a simpleminded 

question, I haven’t been fully satisfied with any of the answers in the archives so far, 

not even my own [2004fa:334]. 

The question is not how the capitalist should measure the labor performed on the job, 

although [2001fa:276] answered exactly this. It is important to understand that the thing we 

are trying to measure is labor-power, not labor. This is relevant for chapter 19, which will 

be assigned starting the day after tomorrow, Monday Nov. 7. 

[2002fa:226] is probably the best answer so far; it seems to have influenced [2003fa:398], 

and it was blatantly paraphrased in [2004fa:313]. In a nutshell it says: labor-power is measured 

by the day because we know the value of the daily labor-power. This is an interesting 

thought and I will come back to it. 

Let’s look at the real relationship between capitalist and worker, not at its surface expression 

on the market. The capitalist has somehow attained control over the means of 

production, without which the laborer cannot produce and therefore not nourish himself.


Now he is trying to take best advantage of this control. What do you think he is going to say 

to the worker? 

The following dialogue is not located on the surface of the economy, but on a deeper 

level, the reality of which any actual capitalist would be quick to deny, see my [2000fa:158]. 

But let us assume, for the sake of the argument, that the capitalist would actually talk to us 

on this level. 

Is he going to say: I will only allow you to use the means of production under my control 

if for every hour which you work for yourself you work an additional hour for me? 

Or is he going to say: I will only allow you to use the means of production under my 

control if you also give me control over all your labor-power, against a wage which allows 

you to reproduce this labor-power? 

The second bargain, not the first, is meant by Marx’s “sale of the worker’s labor-power.” 

Admittedly, this is an unpleasant state of affairs, but this is presumably why Thelonius [1157] 

sees so many parallels between capitalism and slavery. And it would explain the puzzle 

mentioned by Bob in [1140] that since the achievement of the 8-hour day, not much reduction 

in working hours has taken place. 

Now if you specify the fine print of this agreement, then the first thing which has to be 

determined is the value of the necessary means of consumption, and secondly, the limits 

of the consumption of the worker’s labor-power by the capitalist must be determined. This 

involves not only length of the daily work, but also weekends, holidays, vacations, and 

retirement. Those who argued that the day is the measuring unit because we know the daily 

value of labor-power, but not its hourly value, seem to have had this sequence in mind. 

According to the argument just made, it would be possible to measure labor-power in 

days, weeks, years, or entire lifetimes, but not in hours. The day is the shortest and simplest 

of these possible measuring units. 

Message [1216] referenced by [Answer:4], [1140], [1185], [1326], [1957], [2007fa:395], and [2010fa:976]. Next 

Message by Hans is [1248]. 

[1957] Fidel: There has been much discussion amongst the class as to why the day is 

taken as the unit of labor power instead of the hour or week or year. Marx does not make 

it clear exactly why this is the chosen unit. Hans and others in the class believe that it is 

due to ability to measure. An hour as unit of labor is difficult to measure. Complex labor 

can involve many motions and calibrations. One hour would not be accurate because of 

the slight differences from hour to hour. The day is more representative than the hour. The 

week or month are not as precise. The day becomes the smallest measurable unit acceptable, 

therefore the most accurate. 

Hans: The hour must be ruled out because we are measuring labor-power, not labor itself. My [1216] gives all the 

details. 

Message [1957] referenced by [2011fa:633]. First Message by Fidel is [750]. 


2008SP, 572 in 2009fa, 635 in 2010fa, 653 in 2011fa, 682 in 2012fa, and 653 in Answer: 

Question 493 Explain Marx’s sentence: “The working-day is determinable but in and for 

itself indeterminate.” 


[1135] Snowy: The labor day consists of two parts. One is determinate and the other is 

indeterminate but determinable. 

The determinate part is the necessary part that is fixed by economic law. This is determined 

by the working time that is required for the reproduction of the labor-power of the 

laborer himself. Marx does not use the measurement of the hour, but rather the measurement 

of labor-power for the basis of the determinable working-day measurement. 

The second part, which is variable, is based on the balance of forces between workers and 

capitalists. If the working-day is A–B + B–C or A—C, it varies with the variable quantity 

B–C. These “limits of necessary labor are not visible to surface agents. No bell rings in the 

factories at 11 am. to indicate that now the (unpaid) surplus labor begins”. This balance is 

hidden in the core structure of the economy. 

Thus, “one of its parts is determined by the working time required for the reproduction of 

the labor-power of the laborer himself, its total length varies with the duration of the surpluslabor. 

The working-day is therefore, determinable, but in and for itself indeterminate”. 

Hans: The beginning of your answer originally said: 

The labor day consists of two parts. One is determinable and the other is indeterminate. The 

determinable part ... 

I corrected it along the lines explained in [1165]. 

At the end of your second paragraph you had the additional passage 

“This simple observation is relevant because Marx assumes that competition between workers 

and capitalists tends to equalize the rate of exploitation: an equal rate of exploitation can 

accommodate different lengths of the working-day”. 

I removed it because it is a quote from the Annotations taken out of context. I also did not see how it applies to the 

things you are saying elswhere in your answer. 


[1165] Hans: Determinate, indeterminate, determinable. The first part of the workingday, 

the time during which the worker produces an equivalent of his or her wage, is called 

“given” by Marx in [340:1] and [340:2/o], and “determined by ...” in [341:1], other words 

would be “determinate” or “fixed.” By this, Marx means that economic mechanisms exist 

which determine its length, namely, the consumption requirements of the workers. If the 

total work day is shorter than this first part, then workers cannot survive from wages alone, 

and wage labor as we know it in capitalism would be impossible. 

Marx says that the second part “varies” in [341:1], he calls it “variable” in [340:2/o], 

other words would be “indeterminate” and “fluid”. This is the opposite situation from that 

just discussed: there are no basic economic mechanisms which would determine its length. 

This second part of the work day can be long or short, capitalism can function either way. 

The sum of both is therefore indeterminate as well, but here Marx uses an additional attribute: 

he says that it is determinable. “Determinable” means, literally, it can be determined. 

This determination does not come from its inner nature because, as Marx says in [341:1], 

“in and for itself” it is indeterminate. Despite its inner indeterminacy, Marx shows in the 

course of chapter Ten that the capitalist system needs it to be determined. The contradictory 

and conflictual process by which it is determined is the subject of chapter Ten. 

Message [1165] referenced by [1135], [1140], and [2007SP:813]. Next Message by Hans is [1216].


[1214] Mullin: Necessary Labor being determinable. As an individual already in the 

work place as a “professional” I seek the opinion of others as to the view that our labor is 

divided into “necessary” and “surplus.” Is it due to my ego that I hold to the belief that all 

the hours and effort I put into my career is necessary to the growth and well-being to which 

I belong? Or is does this illustrate the brilliant efforts wrought by the cunning businessman 

to possibly brainwash the working class into believing that an eight to ten hour work day is 

necessary for the business? Might I interject that this might be a combination of the two as 

our employers have found a way to play off our pride and our need for being accomplished. 

Ever present in our daily dialogue are the questions of salary, bonuses and overtime. We 

should all stop and applaud the excellent work of our bosses in that they have convinced 

us that our bonuses are in fact a large portion, commission, of our output when in fact this 

represents a small percentage of the amount of lining that is destined for their bank accounts. 

As illustrated in the text, capitalists hold the power of negotiation and leverage as they can 

threaten the ceasing of production which will result in the loss of jobs. Will this effect the 

threatening capitalist? Surely it will, but only if it comes to pass and does not hold as merely 

a threat. 

In no way am I suggesting that we should not give it our all when at work due to this 

definition of labor. Simply put, each employee has the responsibility to do a self-evaluation 

of your worth and expect to be compensated appropriately. The way our economy is now 

set-up there is a window of opportunity to cliam your part of the profit that is produced by 

your “surplus labor.” 

Next Message by Mullin is [1215]. 

Exam Question 495 is 395 in 2000fa, 420 in 2001fa, 453 in 2002fa, 469 in 2003fa, 521 

in 2004fa, 537 in 2007SP, 536 in 2007fa, 544 in 2008SP, 575 in 2009fa, 658 in 2011fa, 

and 687 in 2012fa: 

Exam Question 495 How are the minimal and maximal bounds of the working-day determined? 

[1337] Astclair: The minimum bound cannot be determined, though Marx says it does 

exist. He does say that the line from B-C (surplus labor) must be greater than zero. And that 

necessary labor time (A-B) must only make up a portion of the day. So, I would say that the 

minimum bound is drawn from the first action of labor past point B, and into surplus labor. 

The maximum bounds, according to Marx, are more easily measured. The first measure 

is that a man can only labor so much in a 24 hour day, with a certain amount of time needed 

for sleep and rest. Marx also says the maximum can be established in terms of morality. He 

says that a man must be able to satisfy his social needs of intellectualism and social desires, 

the things which a person works for. For a man doesn’t live to work, he works to live. 

Hans: “Intellectualism” is a wrong choice of words. Otherwise your answer is ok. Marx remarks that the minimum 

bound does not really exist, because the day must always be longer than the necessary labor. From this follows that 

the wage is always a contested quantity, there can never be an equlibrium with which both workers and capitalists 

are satisfied. But this is a subtlety we can do without on an exam question. For the purposes of the exam, the 

minimum bound is the time it takes the worker to reproduce his means of subsistence. 





Question 497 How long is the working-day from the point of view of the capitalist? 

[1140] Bob: Marx states in 341:1: “The working-day is thus not a constant, but a variable 

quantity.” This initially tells me the length of the working day can and will change. Over the 

years we have seen changes to the length of the workday in our economy. It seems to have 

settled at an 8-hour day for quite some time. Although many work overtime based on the 

increase of pay to time and half. 

So the laborer will provide labor, or their use-value, as long as they want. One day is 

24 hours and some will work the full 24 at one time depending on the type of work they 

are involved in. For example firemen and rescue personnel will often work longer hours, 

but only for a short period. The general workforce stays with the 40-hour week, but I don’t 

foresee a change to this any time soon. 

Hans: Marx’s word “variable” does not mean here that the working-day empirically varies over time, but that there 

are no economic laws determining its length. See my [1165]. The empirical facts are then the consequence of this, 

see [341:2]. 

You seem to say that the length of the work day is determined by the wishes of the worker. But the worker’s 

choice how long he or she wishes to work greatly depends on the hourly wage. In Marx’s theory, the hourly wage 

does not enter the determination of the length of the working-day because it is determined after the length of the 

working-day is settled. 

According to Marx (see my explanation in [1216]), the daily wage is determined first, namely, by the worker’s 

daily cost of living (chapter Six). Then the length of the working-day is determined by the struggles between 

workers and capitalists described in chapter Ten, and finally the hourly wage is derived from this by dividing the 

daily wage by the length of the working-day (chapter Nineteen). 

Message [1140] referenced by [1216] and [2007SP:750]. Next Message by Bob is [1253]. 

[1151] Adamwest: The work day of a tired man. From the capitalist point of view, he 

would desire the work day to be as long as possible to the point where the worker may return 

to work the next day with the same amount of productivity. If the work day is so long that 

productivity declines as the week goes on, then the capitalist is not benefiting from the extra 

hours being worked. The goal of the capitalist is to find the optimum point in time where 

the worker has worked as long as possible without affecting his productivity outlook for the 

next day. When this is achieved, the capitalist is getting the most out of every minute his 

workers are on the job. 

Hans: This is the right answer, well formulated, although I had to change your “equilibrium” into “optimum.” 

The optimum for the capitalist cannot be an equilibrium because it is unacceptable for the worker. It deprives the 

worker of his or her cultural rights (does not leave enough time for family etc.) and in the longer run it is even 

unsustainable physiologically, it leads to degradation of health and shortening of the life time. 

Message [1151] referenced by [1161], [1163], and [1518]. Next Message by Adamwest is [1255]. 

[1161] Jerm: The main objective of the capitalist is to create as much surplus as they 

possibly can with the labor that they have. There are two maximum bounds to which the 

capitalist must abide by. These maximums are determined by the physiological and cultural 

needs of the worker. The capitalist does not want to exploit the worker so much as to affect 

their performance in the next working day. The other limit is set by the cultural norms of 

that specific society. In the end the working day is actually set by the contest between the 

capitalist and the worker. In this case the capitalist does not care how long the working day 

is as long as the worker can do their job while staying alert and productive.


Hans: You constrain the maximum by the worker’s cultural norms, while Adamwest [1151] does not. Here I have 

to agree with Adamwest: from the point of view of the capitalist, these cultural limits are irrelevant. But you see 

that there is a problem. You do not resolve it correctly, but seeing the problem is an important step. The problem 

is that the optimum point at which the capitalist can extract the most amount of labor from the worker violates 

the worker’s rights. This is why the fixation of the working day is not the convergence towards an “equilibrium” 

(Adamwest’s original formulation) but a contest which has to be resolved by force. 

Message [1161] referenced by [1162] and [1163]. Next Message by Jerm is [1351]. 

[1162] Avatar: graded A– Retort from Avatar. To me, Jerm’s answer [1161] seems a 

more appropriate answer to question 495 about the constraints on the amount of hours in a 

work day from social and physiological bounds of the worker (not the capitalist). So I am 

offering this post as a supplement to Jerm’s answer and to add what I believe to be a more 

accurate picture of the working day from capitalist perspective. 

I think the main problem with Jerm’s answer is the failure to discuss surplus-labor as a 

key element in the length of the work day. The length of the workday from a capitalist’s 

perspective must fit the following two conditions: 

Hourly wage × hours in workday < total value created by the day’s labor. “The commodity 

I have sold you differs from the ordinary crowd of commodities in that its use creates 

value, a greater value than it costs” [342:2/o]. This can be shown in terms of the “M-C-M” 

format we studied in the last few chapters by the following: M-C-P-C1-M1. Where M is 

wage paid to a worker for C (labor) and the consumption of labor creates for the capitalist 

a new commodity (C1) that can be exchanged for M1, where M1 and C1 > M and C. 

This means that, for a capitalist, the length of the workday must be long enough to make 

M1,C1>M,C 

and 

Hourly wage × hours in workday > or = money necessary for subsistence of the capitalist. 

“Wherever a part of society possesses the monopoly of the means of production, the 

worker, free or unfree, must add to the labour-time in order to produce [at least] the means 

of subsistence for the owner of the means of production” [344:2/o]. 

This condition is what makes the explicit length in hours of the work day variable. The 

subsistence wage is a function of society and it directly influences the length of the work 

day. Jerm said, “In this case the capitalist does not care how long the working day is as 

long as the worker can do their job while staying alert and productive.” That statement is not 

accurate. The capitalist must care that the work day is at least long enough that the amount 

of surplus-labor yoked will provide subsistence for the capitalist. 

I find it necessary to point out that while these conditions seem very similar on the surface, 

they are different. The first one is a condition of the capitalist economic base and the second 

is a function of the societal super-structure. 

Hans: Both conditions refer to the economic base. 

Originally, your formulation of the first condition at the beginning of your third paragraph was 

Hourly wage × hours in workday < total value of a day’s labor to capitalist. 

This was a slip into the subjective theory of value which Marx, of course, repudiated. 

Your second condition is mis-formulated. The capitalist does not have to gain enough surplus-value from each 

individual worker to pay for his means of subsistence. He only has to gain it from the sum total of all his workers. 

A mathematical formulation would be: 


N times (Total value generated by a day’s labor minus Hourly wage × hours in workday) > 

or = money necessary for subsistence of the capitalist. 

where N is the number of workers employed. Marx mentions this condition in 422:2/423 and uses it at the beginning 

of chapter Thirteen as the reason why the early capitalists assembled under one roof many more workers than had 

traditionally worked together. 

Another condition, which also has to hold, and which is mathematically almost equal to your mathematical 

formulation of the second condition, is the following: 

Hourly wage × hours in workday > necessary for subsistence of the worker. 

This can be backed up, for instance, by 341:2 which, interestingly, argues that the condition should be a strict “>” 

and not just “> or =.” 


[1163] Guerito: graded A Through the Eyes of the Capitalist. The capitalist is a profit 

maximizer, he is trying to be as efficient as possible with the commodity of work he has 

invested in. Jerm has the right idea in mentioning the physiological effects on the worker 

in his [1161], but goes a little too far in suggesting “cultural norms” as a limit. Remember 

we are looking at this through the eyes of the capitalist. The capitalist isn’t bothered by 

intruding upon cultural bounds, as long as the worker has the strength and is aware enough 

of how to efficiently do his or her job. The capitalist feels he has the right to fully utilize the 

use-value he has purchased. The capitalist sees the work day as 24 hours subtractracted by 

what is deemed necessary “such that it does not rob the laborer of his health or shorten his 

life.” 

Hans: You are re-affirming Adamwest’s [1151] against Jerm’s revision, and I agree. 

Individual capitalists may regret that they have to squeeze their workers, but if they want to stay competitive, 

they cannot respect the worker’s cultural bounds unless there is a law or Union contract which forces all capitalists 

to do the same. 


[1415] Daleman: graded A I was wrong in my response to this question. I did not explain 

the question from a capitalists point of view. A capitalist would have that the working day 

be as long as possible but still allowing for the worker to be productive the next day. The 

capitalist will look for the optimum number of hours worked in a day that still provides that 

the worker will not burn out and that the workers will maintain a high level of productivity 

in the following day. 

The capitalist will do what it takes to be productive and maintain the competitive edge. If 

that means squeezing his workers a little or stepping over cultural bounds so be it. 


[1437] Snickers: content A– form 90% The whole objective as a Capitalist is to maximize 

their profits. If the laborer could work 24 hours in a day and not lose any productivity the 

next day then the capitalist boss would be okay with that. As Marx explains the length of 

the working day is determind by the struggle between workers and capitalists, or the longest 

time a worker can work and keep the same productivity for the next day. So the capitalist 

boss would want to find the equilibrium point where if the workers worked one minute more 

their productivity would fall for the next day, so the point where you maximize the workers’ 

productivity, and in essence maximize the capitalist bosses’ profits. 


[1495] Iblindone: graded B– The working day for the capitalist must include the necessary 

labor time for the worker to reproduce his daily wage plus sufficient surplus labor for


the capitalist to produce a profit, which would be no less then the amount that he can survive 

off of. To use examples for Marx A-B-C. A = being start of the work day, A-B = time necessary 

for the worker to reproduce his daily wage, and B-C the surplus labor produced as a 

profit for the capitalist. 


[1518] Geo: graded A The length of the work day from the point of view of the capitalist 

is, as noted in the archives [1151], the amount of time where surplus labor is ‘optimized’ by 

balancing today’s productivity with tomorrow’s. The capitalist is always looking for ways 

by which it can increase surplus labor. It does not benefit the capitalist to require the worker 

to put in consecutive 24 hour work days. This would quickly deplete the worker of his/her 

health and energy which are necessary determinants of productivity. The capitalist therefore 

tries to push the worker to its limits but still leave enough room for the worker to get basic 

amounts of food and sleep. And so from the point of few of the capitalist the length of the 

work day is where this optimum level of worker productivity and rejuvenation is. However, 

it is important to note that the level chosen by the capitalist is not the optimum level for the 

worker, since they are barely earning subsistence. They are indeed very stretched in terms 

of health and living standards and gradually decrease in health and productivity because of 

the minimal living standards they have been required to experience. (sounds like being a 

student) 


[1541] TimJim: The working day of the capitalist is 24 hours minus the health and welfare 

of the worker/laborer. The capitalist is looking to get the maximum amount of labor out of 

their workers yet still have the workers produce the same amount the next day. The capitalist 

is looking to get as much surplus labor as possible without jeopardizing the health of the 

worker. The capitalist treats the laborer like a machine and realizes that the capitalist must 

take care of the worker in order for them to maximize profits and continue the exploitation. 


[1562] Gdubmoe: graded C+ The working day from the view of the capitalist consists of 

the laborer’s time spent producing commodities. The laborer and capitalist agree on the wage 

that will be paid but the capitalist will decide the hours that will be worked. Physically the 

working day must be a reasonable time because for an extended period of time or too many 

hours the laborer would be “robbing the capitalist” and will become inefficient. The labor 

done and the wage paid are directly proportional. Another influence on the working day 

are the transactions of the market place. The capitalist computes the wages by factoring in 

the following: worker’s cost of living, length of the working day, accounting for the market 

transactions, and the relationship between the laborer and capitalist. All these factors are 

considered in the wage. From the information gathered the capitalist will then decide the 

working day. 

Hans: Wages and working hours are not set and agreed on by individual decisions but, if Marx’s theory is right, 

they are governed by anonymous social market forces. The weekly income of a working class family is an amount 

close to the weekly reproduction cost of this family. If it is less, then the workers cannot survive, and if it is more, 

then workers become too independent and will not tolerate their exploitation. Marx claims that this economic law 

holds whether the worker works 40 hours or 80 hours a week, and whether or not wife and children customarily 

bring home paychecks as well. 

Now what is the length of the working-day? You are saying if the working-day is too long the worker becomes 

inefficient. This is true, but experience tells us that capitalists nevertheless keep their workers much longer than 


the time of highest efficiency. After having fought tooth and nail against the 10-hour working day, the capitalists 

discovered to their surprise that they could get much more output from the workers in a shorter day. But for this 

they needed to mechanize some of the traditional production processes; they would not have done it on their own 

accord. 


[1628] Pisciphiliac: graded A When the capitalist is looking at the length of the working 

day, he must take current productivity levels and compare them with the possible productivity 

levels of tomorrow. Workers desire to spend time with their families and may physiologically 

be unable to sustain long-term if the work day is too long. A capitalist will want to 

work as many hours as possible today, up to the point that is does not cause a decline in the 

outlook of the workers and their productivity tomorrow. When a capitalist finds this point, 

he is maximizing the productivity of his workers. 


[1661] SueGirl: graded A The battle between the capitalist and the workers. From 

the point of view of the capitalist, the length of the working-day is as long as the law will 

permit. Labor laws are formed only if there is a powerful uprising of the working-class or 

an event which sparks the attention of society enough to provoke change. 

This turns into a battle between the proletariat and the capitalist. If the capitalist is winning 

the battle and reasonable labor laws are not in place, the capitalist will milk the workers 

for as much surplus-labor (above and beyond the labor necessary to produce an equivalent of 

their wage) as possible. If one worker cannot physically or mentally handle it, the capitalist 

fires them and dips into their vast pool of potential employees. If the workers are winning, 

they will find strength in numbers and become involved in enacting labor laws and finding 

protection in unions. 

The capitalist, however, will continue to fight the war with the goal of getting more from 

the workers, while giving less. All the while they expect the workers to give more and get 

less. 

Next Message by SueGirl is [1827]. 

[1662] Keltose: graded A The capitalist views the laborer as a purchased commodity 

needed for a certain amount of time. “The time during which the laborer works is time 

during which the capitalist consumes the labor-power he has purchased of him. If the laborer 

consumes his time for himself, he robs the capitalist” (928, pg. 2005fa.pdf). 

So, to not get ‘robbed’ the capitalist keeps the laborer busy working, and trying to get 

the most value necessary out of him. Marx states, that like all buyers, the capitalist is trying 

to get the most value out of what he has purchased (pg. 928,2005fa.pdf). Since the worker 

doesn’t have full control over his hours-worked, once again the capitalist has the advantage, 

and thus determines the wage which the laborer agrees to. However, the wages and laborvalue 

are not in proportion. Nevertheless, “capital is dead labor”, so the capitalist needs the 

laborer for minimum necessary time during that day. The time needed for the capitalist to 

turn a profit regarding their means of production. 


[1673] Synergy: graded A The capitalist will work his workers until he can get the greatest 

amount of efficiency and maximization of profit out of them. That being said, there is not 

really a set amount of hours in a working day to the capitalist. As long as he is running


efficiently and the workers are able to remain productive the next day the capitalist will 

work to that breaking point. 


[1813] MrPink: graded A My comments in the exam: 

From the point of view of the capitalist the working day is as long as they can get the 

worker to stay. An individual capitalist would try to take the most advantage possible. 

He/she can do this because they view the labor source as unlimited. However, if every 

capitalist were to do this then there would be no replacement of labor. This is why the working 

day is limited by physiological constraints and regulations. This then brings a second 

aspect into view, the part of the working day that the capitalist values is the relative surplus 

value. 


What is best for the capitalist (a longer working day) “violates the worker’s rights” (as 

you put it). 

Additionally the capitalist would see a decline in productivity if the working day was too 

long for the worker. This shows a long term benefit to the capitalist structure to limit the 

working day. 




Question 498 Isn’t it the motive of the worker, like that of the capitalist, to get as much 

money as possible? 

[1147] TimJim: Motive of the worker. I believe that this question is closely related to 

question 501 and may follow along the same lines as SueGirl’s response [1138]. The reason 

that these questions are closely related is I believe of the idea of unemployment and job 

scarcity. 

From reading Marx’s ideas, I believe that I can safely assume that the capitalist is the one 

that comes up with the ideas, is the brains of whatever project is on the market, is making all 

of the money. The capitalist then exploits all of his workers to put in force the production of 

the commodity and ends up reaping all of the monetary rewards. The worker is then almost 

forced to accept the wages that the capitalist is willing to provide. 

The unemployment rate is so important because it gives the capitalists the bargaining 

power to force their workers to accept lower pay or be out of a job. If there were no unemployment 

rate, the workers would be able to have the ultimate bargaining power, forcing the 

capitalist to pay them what they are worth or threatening to take their services elsewhere. 

To sum the question up in a sentence; the worker’s motive is not to get as much money as 

possible but to accumulate as much money as the capitalist is willing to give them. As long 

as the unemployment rate fluctuates, this bargaining power will fluctuate as well. 

Hans: The workers generally do not lack the brains to lead the businesses, but they lack the education and are 

barred from collecting the experiences which would allow them to do so. The educational system in a capitalist 

country deliberately only allows a small minority to reach their full potential. See for instance the very moving 


personal story at the end of [2004fa:515], or my own rant in [2002fa:12]. Just as the unemployment rate, the 

educational system is an additional mechanism that keeps class society in place. 

Message [1147] referenced by [1158]. Next Message by TimJim is [1241]. 

[1158] Jimmie: graded A Motives of the worker. In his answer [1147] TimJim states that 

“the worker is then almost forced to accept the wages that the capitalist is willing to provide.” 

I would argue that they are not only ‘almost’ forced, but indeed they are ‘absolutely’ forced 

to take whatever wage is provided. The question of the motive of the worker can then be 

answered. Although the worker wishes to make as much money as possible, the worker is 

forced to accept his wage and his real motive is just to make enough to survive. When the 

capitalist offers subsistence wages or even less than subsistence wages, then the worker’s 

motive for money is based on the fact that he does not get paid enough. For the capitalist, 

the motive is to profit as much as possible from the low wages and surplus value they create. 




Question 501 Why did the worker in this whole argument never say to the capitalist “you 

are exploiting me”? 

[1138] SueGirl: graded A The vampire who needs your blood to come to life. This 

question could not be more relevant to me right now. My husband is a computer programmer 

for a company in Utah and has been asked to create an entire piece of software singlehandedly. 

Before my husband was hired there, the company was in need of this piece of 

software, but did not have anyone who possessed the skills to create it. They wanted to 

save money, so they hired 8 people in Prague to work together and program the software for 

$400,000 (which is pretty cheap) and produce it in 2 years. The software was completed, 

but it was very poor quality and after my husband was hired, they wanted him to recreate the 

software so that it was usable. It could not be salvaged, however, so he had to begin from 

scratch under a tight 6 month deadline. 

In other words, he (the worker) is expected to create a piece of software by himself 

(versus 8 people) for one-fourth of the salary the guys in Prague made, in 6 months (versus 

2 years). My husband is capable of doing this, but in order to complete it on time he is 

working overtime everyday (14 hours daily) in hopes of proving himself or receiving some 

large bonus once it is completed. The kicker is that the company he works for will be 

making 1 million dollars (at least) off of his software and they are planning to sell it to 

other online companies in order to make an even greater profit, while my husband is earning 

a yearly salary of...WAY LESS THAN THAT and will most likely get a measly bonus in 

comparison. 

Why can’t my husband, the worker, not stand up and say, “you are exploiting me!”? There 

are many reasons, all of which have been ingrained into our heads throughout our lives: 

1. Fear of losing a job. It is often easier for a capitalist to find a new worker than it is for 

a worker to find a new job once they’ve been fired. Workers feel like they are dispensable 

and can be easily replaced, because they are treated like commodities and not like people.


2. The worker feels obligated to the capitalist by value-exchange. The worker has agreed 

to sell his labor for a certain amount of money per year/hour and the capitalist has agreed 

to pay him for whatever work they think needs to be completed. The worker must turn a 

blind eye toward how much the capitalist is making off of their work because the worker 

voluntarily agreed to be paid a certain wage in exchange for their time/labor. 

3. Workers compare their wages with other co-workers instead of comparing their wages 

to the amount of money being made off of them by the capitalist. It is easier to compare 

ourselves with a common man than with a giant corporation. 

4. Some workers may feel that they’re being greedy by asking for more money. In reality, 

it is the capitalist who is being greedy by stealing as much surplus labor as they can from 

the worker. 

5. Many workers view the capitalist as an authority figure (like a father) whom they must 

obey without question. “Daddy knows best.” This makes the worker believe that they are 

being treated fairly and they are naïve to the value their labor creates. 

6. Workers feel as though they need the capitalist (no matter what the industry). Society 

makes it difficult to succeed without the capitalist. My husband could quit his job (contract 

out his work), create the software himself and receive the entire $400,000 for it (or more) in 

a 6 month period, however, the risks of not having things such as health insurance, a stable 

paycheck, business connections, etc. often discourage the worker from living without the 

capitalist and owning his own means of production. 

7. Workers are taught obedience, not to think for themselves. The proletariat has always 

valued the quality of obedience and have had it ingrained into their brains through any religion 

they have been a part in. “Obey thy father and mother” often bleeds into obeying 

the workplace authorities. Sociological studies have shown that working-class parents value 

teaching obedience to their children over anything else; while upper-class parents value 

teaching their children how to think for themselves and how to question authority (in order 

to come up with greater solutions to problems) more than anything else. This keeps the 

workers obedient and keeps the capitalists in charge. 

8. The capitalist takes on the saintly role of the provider of the paycheck and the giver of 

the job. Workers are fooled into thinking that they should be grateful for whatever they get 

and not press their luck. U.S companies relocate their factories overseas and outrageously 

exploit their workers in foreign countries. Their response to criticism? “We are providing 

them jobs and a way out poverty.” It may be true to an extent, but the capitalist is not the 

saint they claim to be. Instead, they’re the “vampire who needs your blood to come to life 

(Ehrbar 375)”. 

Message [1138] referenced by [1145], [1147], [1512], and [1643]. Next Message by SueGirl is [1266]. 

[1145] Zone: (graded A weight 50%) response to vampires. I agree with Suegirl’s 

remarks in [1138], but still think she is missing a small but important part of why a worker 

never says to a Capitalist “you are exploiting me.” It is because the workers cannot see the 

rate of exploitation that is put on them by the Capitalists. In the Annotations in 10.1.b Hans 

states that, “The limits of necessary labor are not visible to the surface agents.” If it is not 


clear when the surplus labor begins, then it is hard to determine exactly how the worker is 

being exploited and so it is difficult to ask the question why are you exploiting me. 

Hans: This is a valid point, which goes in a similar direction as my [2000fa:158]. 


Question 502 is 475 in 2003fa and 545 in 2007SP: 

Question 502 Which “peculiarity” in the nature of labor-power implies a limit to its consumption 

by the capitalist? 

[1137] MarxSchmarx: graded A The peculiar nature of labor-power. The peculiarity 

in the nature of labor-power resides in the exertion of labor and the unique quality labor has 

that requires it to be “recharged” in order to perform the same tasks the next day. If all the 

capitalist wanted was one day of labor from one worker, he could, in effect, require that the 

work day be 24 hours long. He has this right because he is the owner of the labor-power. The 

worker would be completely exhausted of his labor power for the next day. The capitalist 

would not care for he only wanted the laborer for one day. 

However, if the capitalist wants the worker for more than one day, he realizes that the 

worker needs time off in order to replenish his/her energy. If the capitalist requires that the 

laborer work for only 12 hours, he knows that the laborer has enough time away from labor 

to insure the worker can perform at the same level the next day. 

In 10.1.d of our text, the worker explains that his effort is a daily-finite resource, and 

comes to a conclusion that “By an unlimited extension of the working day, you may in one 

day use up a quantity of labor-power greater than I can restore in three. What you gain in 

labor, I lose in substance” [342:2/o]. The worker goes on to state that this will eventually 

lead to a shortened life, of which he did not agree to in the initial exchange. I believe that 

the capitalist already knows this, which is why the working day is not longer than necessary 

for the capitalist to receive the same quality of labor the next day. 

Hans: Even if the worker is able to come to work again on the next day and deliver the same quality of work, his 

health and longevity may still be damaged by this so much that even overtime payment cannot make up for it. 

Message [1137] referenced by [2007SP:773]. Next Message by MarxSchmarx is [1177]. 


Question 507 What are the main differences distinguishing capitalism from earlier forms 

of exploitation? 

[1143] Geo: content A form 98% The main differences distinguishing capitalism from 

earlier forms of exploitation is how the labor is influenced to provide the surplus labor. In 

earlier forms of exploitation the work was influenced by direct coercion. 

In capitalism the laborers are politically emancipated and completely separated from the 

means of production, so they are influenced through the “dull compulsion” of economic 

forces. Capitalism is based on the free sale of labor power instead of coercion. In circumstances 

where, in antiquity, exchange value was the focus of production, not use value, Marx 

notes that this would lead to overwork or more severe exploitation. Such is not the case with 

exploitation in modern capitalism but it is influenced through more subtle economic forces. 

Someone may be forced to provide or sell his/her labor power otherwise they will not be


able to provide subsistence for themselves in a capitalist economy. It is this relationship that 

makes it possible for the capitalist to exploit the individual. The capitalist almost always has 

an advantage in labor bargaining. 


[1150] Gza: graded A Although Marx states surplus labor is not “new” to capitalism, capitalism 

has introduced new mechanisms of labor exploitation. In early forms of exploitation, 

the owners of means of production “must add to the time necessary for his own maintenance 

an extra working time in order to produce the means of subsistence for the owners” 

[344:2/o]. However in capitalism, Marx observes production being motivated by exchangevalue 

rather than use-value. This shift in motivation creates a market where sale becomes 

the principal interest and slavery, serfdom, domination, and oppression become legitimate 

through the single goal of sale. 

Marx uses the example of US slavery to illustrate his point. He states “in proportion, as 

the export of cotton became vital interest to these states, the over-working of the negro and 

sometimes the using up of his life in 7 years of labor became a factor in a calculated and 

calculating system” (Marx 344). Marx goes on to argue within the US context of slavery, 

“it was no longer a question of obtaining from him a certain quantity of useful products,” 

rather the aim was now seen in terms of the “production of surplus-value itself” [344:2/o]. 

The substitution of exchange-value for use-value justifies the owner oppressing workers in 

the pursuit of profit by blinding him/her to the harms of exploitation. 

As Geo notes in his answer [1143], in earlier forms of exploitation, work was the byproduct 

of coercion. By workers being separated “completely” from the means of production, 

labor is now freely purchased and sold similar to “products” rather than coercion. Although 

workers in ways are compensated through owners “purchasing” labor, the focus on 

exchange-value legitimizes unilateral and unqualified exploitation. This shift also creates 

an ontological relationship between workers and owners that inherently favors the owners 

through their ability to control and allocate substance/pay to the workers that is needed for 

survival. There is no need for the owner to “worry” about overworking workers since they 

are ontologically “enslaved” to the owner through their production. The homogeneous character 

of work labor, seen as a means of creating exchange-value, makes it problematic for 

any owner to see value in anything but exchange-value/profit. The world seen in terms of 

means to exchange value ignores all other factors regulating relations, both anthropological 

and deontological. 

Hans: The word “ontological” seems to refer to the underlying social structure as opposed to the direct interactions 

of the members of society. But what is “deontological”? 



2011fa, and 718 in 2012fa: 

Question 522 Explain how an excessive lengthening of the work day decreases the rate of 

surplus-value. 

[1144] Zone: graded A In capitalism, the worker’s means of production is owned by the 

capitalist, so the worker is treated as another machine that aids in producing profit. The 

human machine requires food and rest instead of oil and grease for maintenance. Unlike 


machines the worker deteriorates at a different level than machines. Marx states in Value, 

Price, and Profit, “Man on the contrary decays in a greater ratio than would visible from 

the mere numerical addition of work.” When the worker is treated like this and not given 

adequate time to rest between working days, the surplus labor of the worker decreases. This 

is clearly not in the best interest for the capitalist since they want to produce the maximum 

amount of surplus labor within a given work day. This is why it is in the best interest for the 

capitalist to adhere to a normal working day. 

Hans: This is the right answer. The next question is then of course why, if left to their own devices (competition), 

the capitalists are unable to act in their own best interest. Marx derives from this the need that the working-class 

have a say in the economy. See [91:3/o]. 

Message [1144] referenced by [2010fa:1125]. Next Message by Zone is [1145]. 


Multiple Choice Question 528 Necessary labor as used by Marx in chapter Ten and Twelve 

is 

(a) the labor-time necessary to produce a certain article with the average skills and the 

average production methods. 

(b) the labor-time necessary to earn an equivalent for the really necessary consumption 

goods. 

(c) the labor-time necessary to produce an equivalent of the wage 

(d) the labor-time necessary before a business breaks even and can make a profit. 

[1360] Hans: Multiple Choice question which will be on the exam. I promise you that 

this multiple-choice question will be on at least one of the exams. Therefore please read. 

It is unfortunate that Marx switched the definition of “necessary labor” on us. In the early 

chapters of Capital, he used definition (a), but in chapter Ten and later, he uses definition 

(c). The right answer to this multiple choice question is therefore (c). 

Although I noted this on p. 368 of the Annotations, it seems to me now that many class 

participants do not realize that this switch of definitions has happened. But if you have 

the wrong definition of necessary labor, you also misunderstand the definition of relative 

surplus-value, and you are missing an important part of Marx’s argument. Until now I have 

not been aware that this misunderstanding is so widespread, because I just assumed that you 

meant the right thing when you wrote “necessary labor.” Now I know that I cannot make 

this assumption. I will be looking for it in the exam. If you give answers which show this 

misunderstanding, your grade will be seriously penalized. 

The thing that tipped me off was Rudy’s [1359], which makes this misunderstanding. I 

will send a separate response to it. 


[1433] MK: (b) 

Hans: Partial credit, but the right answer is really (c). 



2007fa, 581 in 2008SP, 585 in 2008fa, 614 in 2009fa, 677 in 2010fa, 697 in 2011fa, and 

726 in 2012fa:


Question 529 According to Marx, the only way to increase profits is to shorten the portion 

of the day during which the workers produce an equivalent of their wage, and to extend 

that portion of the day when they create unreimbursed new value for the capitalist. Are the 

capitalists aware of it that all their cost cutting measures, if successful, go at the expense of 

their workers? 

[1175] Ernesto: Ignorance and oversight of the capitalist. I agree with the geometric 

analysis of Marx. A——B–C is a good representation of the make-up of necessary value and 

surplus-value. The question posed in 529 however is more of a judgement call. In my own 

experiences with corporate America, I would have to say that the capitalists are educated 

enough to realize that an increase of profits must be generated by increasing productivity 

without compensation in order to increase profitability. I have worked for my current 

employer for five years. New profit making ventures during my five year stint have been 

introduced without any additional compensation. We have been expected to perform the 

additional tasks of labor without additional incentive other than being able to keep my job. 

There is also a trade-off between technology and labor. Machines and tools are always being 

implemented in order to decrease labor costs. I don’t believe that their purpose is to exploit 

for the fun of it, however, it is seen as a necessary process in order to increase and maintain 

profits. The funny part is how they try and sell the increased expectations as a benefit to you. 

Hans: One can “decrease labor costs” in two ways. 

(a) One can either find a more efficient production method which uses overall less labor to produce the product. 

(b) Or one can decrease labor costs by cutting wages and/or benefits and speeding up the work. 

Marx claims that only (b) will lead to a permanent increase in profits. 


[1185] Astclair: Necessary labor time in a day. I disagree that “all” cost cutting measures 

go at the expense of the workers. The capitalist needs to provide a competitive wage 

to the workers in order to maintain employees. While some cost-cutting measures will go at 

the expense of the workers, much will also come as the result of innovation and technology. 

If capitalists are trying to cut costs, which results in a less-expensive (more competitively 

priced) end product (commodity), then even if the workers were compensated less fairly, 

their wages would go further in the capitalist market. The Adam Smith argument would 

agree with this, and the market would self-adjust to the wages of the workers, and the cost 

of the commodities. 

This section explains that cost-cutting is necessary as a result of the shorter working day, 

I fail to see how hours in the day is relevant. If you need more hours in a day, you simply 

hire more workers. Marx explains that after a certain hour in the day the wages of the worker 

are paid, and the rest of the day is surplus work. I just don’t see how it can be measured this 

way, because that would indicate that no matter how many hours beyond this certain point 

a worker worked their wages were the same. If you simply paid someone $100 to work 

for a day his argument would hold true, but this isn’t usually the case for most labor. You 

still have to compensate for the additional hours worked, shifting the necessary labor point 

to later in the day. This is why I feel that necessary labor needs to be measured in terms 

of percentages, not hours in the day. And in percentages, if you need a certain amount of 

necessary labor in a day you just hire more workers. 


Hans: Bravo for your critical thinking. You discovered two things which I would bet many others in class have not 

thought through. 

First of all: if Marx’s labor theory of value is correct, then technical innovations will not give a lasting advantage 

to the capitalist but will be competed away again; the only way to permanently increase profits is indeed to cut 

wages. 

Secondly: Marx writes as if the daily wage was negotiated first, and then capitalist and worker haggle over how 

long the daily work day should be. Perhaps this was representative of the practices at Marx’s time; it certainly does 

not reflect current practices today. I tried to explain this fiction in the Annotations, p. 374, and also my [1216] 

addresses this. 

Message [1185] referenced by [2007SP:864]. Next Message by Astclair is [1192]. 

[1217] Demosthenes: graded A Workers’ Share of the Profits. I disagree somewhat with 

Ernesto’s approach to the question in [1175]. He feels that today’s capitalists are educated 

enough to realize that cost-cutting measures are achieved at the expense of the workers. I 

think they must realize they are making more profit, and I’m sure they realize they could 

pay their workers more, but I think the capitalists actually believe that it is due to their own 

ingenuity that they are increasing their profit margin. 

I think capitalists tend to view their employees’ wages as just another fixed cost that 

stands in the way of more profit, rather than a variable quantity that reflects the company’s 

successes or failures. Increases in revenue or decreases in cost are almost invariably a result 

of either increased worker output or decreased worker comfort. Even in Ernesto’s case, he 

has taken on more responsibility and pressure without a comparable increase in compensation. 

I don’t think the capitalist congratulates himself on the successful increased rate of 

worker exploitation, but actually believes that he himself deserves these extra profits. 

Final Grading Note by Hans: You would have received a much better grade had you not suddenly terminated 

your participation in the class. 

Message [1217] referenced by [1218] and [1220]. First Message by Demosthenes is [213]. 

[1218] Iblindone: graded A Workers’ Share of the Profits. The answers that Ernesto 

[1175] and Demosthenes [1217] came up with could both be true, because it is a judgement 

call like Ernesto mentioned. However in the capitalist efforts to increase his profits (surpluslabor), 

without increasing the total work day, he will have in fact made his operation more 

efficent (reducing necessary labor). As noted in the Annotations “the prolongation of the 

surplus-labor is actively pursued by the capitalist, and the shortening of the necessary labor 

an unintended side effect.” 

So, no, I don’t think that the capitalist is in fact always trying to make a profit at the 

expense of their workers, it is just making them more productive. First the capitalist can 

increase profits by forcing them to work harder, which is literally at the expense of the 

worker. Or the capitalist can also come up with equipment or new methods that allow for 

the worker to be more productive without actually increasing the total energy the worker 

is expending. In some cases the capitalist, by implementing a certain method or means of 

production, acutally decreases the energy expended by the worker making that worker’s job 

easier. In this respects I agree with Demosthenes that the capitalist could pay the worker 

more, but it is only through their actions that the production process is more profitable. 


[1220] Ernesto: Reply to [1217]: If we the measly working class are aware of the exploitative 

nature of capitalism, I believe it to be rather ignorant to assume the masters are


blind to their own practices. I don’t buy that the slave knows better than the master. Anybody 

with any economic background and understanding knows labor to be a variable cost. They 

are smart enough to understand what and who makes the money for them. The capitalist will 

continue to squeeze labor until they can bear no more. 

Hans: What is measly about the working class? 


[1221] COMMI: I agree with Ernesto [1220] that the Capitalists do know that cost cutting 

does come at the expense of the worker. Just recently in the news a Wal-Mart memo was 

leaked about how they could save billions of dollars by cutting health benefits and taking 

full-time positions and creating two part-time positions. Capitalists are well aware of their 

costs and are always looking to reduce them to further profits. I don’t believe all companies 

are as evil and predatory as Wal-Mart. We can look at Costco, a company that is in the same 

industry as Wal-Mart; they pay employees almost twice what Wal-Mart pays and provide 

benefits for them. Can Costco afford to pay the workers more yes, but they are paying 

employees better than most places for the same work being done. 

Hans: Good examples. Retail labor is a kind of work which cannot be shipped overseas; therefore it should have 

the best wages, instead of the worst. 


[1223] Prairierose: Capitalist Cost Cutting Measures. I would like to add some additional 

comments to what has already been discussed regarding capitalists cutting costs at 

the expense of their workers. I agree with some of the comments made by Demosthenes 

and Ernesto. However, the main objective of any business is to maximize profits. In today’s 

society numerous American companies are attempting to maximize their profits by outsourcing 

work to other countries. The outsourcing of these jobs are at the expense of American 

and foreign workers; both workers are being exploited. Wal-mart is another example of a 

company who utilizes cost cutting measures at the expense of their workers. The media has 

recently been heavily focused on Wal-mart’s business practices. In concluding I believe the 

capitalists are fully aware their cost cutting measures are at the expense of their workers. 

Hans: Yes, if you look at the slave-labor like conditions under which the recipients of these outsorced jobs have to 

work, it is difficult to deny that profits go at the expense of workers. 


Question 534 is 284 in 1997WI, 528 in 2003fa, 581 in 2004fa, and 578 in 2007fa: 

Question 534 Are the social conditions of the labor process the same thing as the relations 

of production? 

[1202] Rudy: graded A Social Conditions v. Relations of Production. Social conditions 

of the labor process and relations of production differ, though perhaps only slightly. We encounter 

the term ‘social conditions of the labor process’ in terms of the need to increase 

productivity in order increase surplus-value. In fact, Marx explains that, “The technical and 

social conditions of the labor process and consequently the mode of production itself must be 

revolutionized if the productivity of labor is to be increased [431:1/o].” To me, this denotes 

an intentional interaction among the workers to actually increase productivity. Meanwhile, 

relations of production is referred to in the appendix on page 1065 of Fowkes’ translation 

as, “. . . the social position of the agents of production in relation to each other.” To me, this 

definition does not denote interaction, but rather relative social position. Hans clarified this 


distinction in [2003fa:479] by warning us to differentiate between social and interpersonal 

relations. It seems using that measure, social conditions refer to the way workers are interacting 

to increase productivity, while relations of production gives us only relative position 

of the labor process, but does not necessarily infer direct interaction. 



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, 584 in 2007SP, 591 in 2008fa, 683 in 2010fa, 

703 in 2011fa, 732 in 2012fa, and 683 in Answer: 

Exam Question 535 What is relative surplus-value? Which mechanisms, that were so far 

taken as given, affect the magnitude of relative surplus-value? 

[1209] Will: (graded B+) Relative Surplus-Value. Relative Surplus Value is the surplusvalue 

which arises from the shortening of the necessary labor time, and from the corresponding 

alteration in the respective lengths of two components of the working day. The 

mechanisms that affects the magnitude of relative surplus-value are the social conditions of 

the labor process and wages. 

One of the largest ideals that Marx came up with was the labor power of an individual 

worker. He focused on the drive to increase surplus value of a given work day and the price 

of the necessaries of life, for the laborer, for the cost of producing labor. This all correlates 

with the social conditions of the labor process. The capitalist can set a given price for a 

work day and with that creates time from which surplus labor can be produced. This overall 

affects the surplus-value of the good being produced and the overall surplus labor given out 

by the laborer. 

Hans: This is an exam question, and your first paragraph would have been sufficient. But leave the wages out: the 

mechanism that was so far taken as given is the productivity of labor. 

Your sencond paragraph is very vague. If you are interested in more detail, read [1997WI:274] or [1996ut:232] 

with my response [1996ut:233]. 


[1235] Manchu: Relative surplus-value is directly proportional to productiveness. When 

productiveness rises and falls relative surplus value rises and falls as well. As a mechanism 

to gain surplus value, it is called “relative” because it increases the gap between capitalist 

and laborer. There are a few main mechanisms that affect the magnitude of relative surplusvalue. 

These mechanisms affect the magnitude of relative surplus-value: 

Cost of wage-goods and their reduction helps make up for the increases in wages themselves. 

Intensity of labor and its increase will yield a bigger output and increased wages. 

Wages and the reduction of wages, comes with one caveat: If wages fall below the workers’ 

ability to sustain themselves, they will be unable to reproduce and labor power will be 

insufficient. 

Hans: Relative surplus-value is not proportional to productivity. It is a nonlinear relation. Interestingly, Marx 

stresses this in chapter Seventeen, see [657:2/o]. Its derivative is positive, i.e., your second sentence is correct 

again.


I have the impression that you read the Annotation without taking the time to understand how things hang 

together. 


[1359] Rudy: graded A– Relative surplus-value is surplus-value made from shortening 

the necessary labor time for production rather than simply lengthening the work day. The 

magnitude of relative surplus-value is determined by the degree to which efficiency increases 

due to the increased productivity of either the production tools or the actual labor process 

hitherto given us. Marx describes this as the revolutinizing of the “technical and social 

conditions of the labor process.” 

Message [1359] referenced by [1360] and [1361]. Next Message by Rudy is [1521]. 

[1361] Hans: Important misunderstanding. Rudy’s [1359] is wrong, but I am glad he 

submitted it, because his answer is so clear that it is obvious that it is wrong. I just reviewed 

some of the earlier answers in the archives: they may have been wrong too, but I didn’t 

notice it. 

The problem is here that Marx, in chapter 12, suddenly uses a new definition for the term 

“necessary labor.” Earlier, “necessary labor” is the labor-time socially necessary to produce 

a given product, and now, “necessary labor” is that part of the working-day during which the 

worker produces an equivalent of this wages. 

Therefore Rudy’s answer will be correct (and it is very well formulated) if you just replace 

the phrase “necessary labor-time for production” by “labor-time needed by the worker to 

produce an equivalent of his or her wage.” 

The relevance of it all is the following: if you reduce the necessary labor-time for the 

production of your article, then you will produce more articles, but each article will have 

a lower value, therefore you will not produce more value or more surplus-value. Higher 

efficiency will therefore not have a direct effect on profits, after the initial honeymoon when 

the good can still be sold at its old price. 

However this higher efficiency also means that the goods which the worker needs for his 

or her reproduction contain less labor. The worker can therefore survive on a lower wage. I 

call it a lower wage because the wage represents less labor time, even though the real wage 

(wage measured in goods) remains the same. Lower wage means higher profit. This is what 

Marx calls relative surplus-value. 

Right now we are witnessing a related phenomenon. In the last few years, wages have 

stagnated and are shamefully low; however prices have also been low, because the internet 

has deflated many retail margins, and because of the cheap imports from China. Things 

cannot continue like this. Now is a good time to join a Union and support the picket lines of 

those on strike, or the living wage campaigns organized by “Jobs with Justice” and others. 


[1369] Michael: Those who came to my study sessions: Please Read. I just wanted 

to follow-up on the comments Hans made in [1361]. We discussed the issues related to 

question 535 relatively thoroughly in both study sessions, but let me restate a few of them in 

case you’re wondering whether you understand. 


As Hans says, the labor time with which we are concerned in chapter 12 is in relation to 

what one might call a subsistence bundle. (I have consistently called it a subsistence bundle, 

with some regret over what this suggests; it might be better to say that it is a bundle that 

affords one a normal standard of living, where normal is the minimum compensation that 

would more or less preclude widespread revolt; but that’s a mouthful :)) Particularly, the 

necessary labor-time is that part of the working day that produces (exactly) a value equal to 

that of the sum of the values of the commodities in the subsistence bundle. 

Here is where I think the confusion enters, but I may be wrong, so feel free to correct 

me. The individual capitalist does strive to increase output per unit of labor time, but this is 

only an indirect source of surplus labor time. Instead, behavior whose aim is to increase the 

productive efficiency of one’s own product may be called the striving for extra-surplus-value. 

Now, there is a connection between this behavior that we see on the level of the individual 

capitalist and necessary labor time. The connection is that as individual capitalists innovate 

and these innovations spread to such an extent that they reset what amounts to socially 

necessary labor time, the value of the same set of articles which comprises the subsistence 

bundle has now decreased insofar as these articles are the ones produced by the innovative 

industries, etc. This would say that the decrease in necessary labor time is a by-product of 

the striving for extra-surplus-value. 

The example I gave in the study session had me as an apple farmer who had developed 

a new technique that would produce twice as many apples as can be produced in what is 

presently the socially necessary labor time. My motivation for conjuring such a technique is 

not that I will thereby reduce necessary labor time (remember, this isn’t the necessary labor 

time for the production of apples, but of the subsistence bundle), but that I will enjoy the extra 

profits associated with being able to sell my apples at a price nearly equal to that associated 

with the social value of apples but above that which would follow from the socially necessary 

labor time being equal to the time it takes me individually. The side effect of my innovation, 

once a similarly productive technique has been adopted by other apple producers, will be to 

lower the price of apples to a level corresponding to the new necessary labor time. Then, to 

the extent that apples are part of the subsistence bundle, this will reduce the collective price 

of that bundle. Thus my innovation has the side effect of reducing the necessary labor time 

for the production of the subsistence bundle as a whole and this is a boon to all productive 

capitalists. 

I hope that is helpful. 

Hans: I totally agree. This is a good way of putting it. 


[1374] Surferboy: Marx states that relative surplus value is: “The shortening of the necessary 

labor time, and from the corresponding alteration in the respective lengths of the 

two components of the working day.” The mechanisms that affect the magnitude of surplus 

value include but are not limited to technological and social advancements. Technological 

advancements enhance and improve the amount of surplus achieved in commodity production. 

They create better productivity as well. 

Hans: See my [1386]. 

Next Message by Surferboy is [1375].


[1386] Hans: Define “necessary labor” In view of earlier misunderstandings, an answer 

which simply defines relative surplus-value as “the shortening of the necessary labor-time, 

and from the corresponding alteration in the respective lengths of the two components of the 

working day” will not get full points, although this is a direct quote of Marx from [ann:404]. 

You have to specify that “necessary labor” is the labor-time necessary to reproduce the 

worker’s wages, rather than that necessary to produce the product itself. 


[1424] MK: Relative surplus value is the surplus value which results from the reduction 

of the necessary labor time, and the resulting alterations in the respective length of the 2 

components of the working day. The mechanisms that affect the relative surplus value are 

the social conditions of the labor process and wage. 

Hans: First of all, you need to specify more clearly what the two components of the working day are, see [1386], 

secondly, the new mechanism which had until now been kept constant is technology. 


[1430] Bboarder: Increase in surplus-value because the portion of the day the worker 

works for himself is shortened is perhaps the most plausible answer; but if you think it 

through you must realize that it does not hold water. Assume the worker produces something 

which does not enter his own wages either directly or indirectly, and the increase in 

production is purely due to technical advances. The worker works as hard as before. Then 

the higher number of products represents just as much value as before, and the value of the 

worker’s labor-power is unchanged too, therefore no additional surplus-value is created. 

Hans: This is a botched-up copy from [2004fa:462]. “Increase in surplus-value because the portion of the day the 

worker works for himself is shortened” is of course the right answer. Regarding your unattributed quotes I will 

draw the necessary consequences. 


Question 538 is 235 in 1996ut, 361 in 1998WI, 362 in 1999SP, 585 in 2004fa, 623 in 

2009fa, and 686 in 2010fa: 

Question 538 What does Marx mean by the statement: “The general and necessary tendencies 

of capital must be distinguished from their forms of appearance”? Give examples 

of “general and necessary tendencies of capital” and of “forms of appearance” of such 

tendencies. 

[1350] ADHH: (graded A) What Marx is conveying in this statement is that inside the 

capitalist system, there are events occurring on the surface, obscuring the truth beneath. He 

is saying that the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, needs to be discovered and differentiated 

from the outer appearance. Company owners are always chasing after more revenue. New 

efficiency standards and the implementation of new equipment may have the appearance 

of helping the workers to be more efficient and safe, helping the company increase their 

revenues. But in actuality, the technology decreases the value of the labor-power of the 

worker. Another example is when a worker’s wage is far below the value that his labor 

produces for his employer. On the surface, it appears to the worker that he is getting paid 

for all of his labor, when in actuality, he is not. He is only getting paid enough to make him 

dependent on the job and to come back to work every day. 

Hans: Very good answer, but this question is not in Installment 2, and it is not a designated exam question, therefore 

it will not be on the exam. 





Question 539 Term Paper: How do modern intellectual property rights fit together with 

Marx’s theory of capitalism? 

[1399] PAE, TimJim, and Pete: Marx said, “The general and necessary tendencies of 

capital must be distinguished from their forms of appearance”. We all know that land, 

houses, and other “real and touchable items” are classified as property in Marx’s day. I 

don’t think he had an idea that the internet was coming and how that would challenge the 

way property was interpreted. 

What is intellectual property? One definition is: “Non tangible products that are created 

by an individual and are protected by law from stealing.” 

In today’s world it is classified as, but not limited to, borrowing a library book and photocopying 

a periodical article out of it. The question is, do the rights of a patron of the library 

to check out a book and use it supersede the rights of the author to protect his work? This 

question could be asked about music, DVDs, and other types of protected material. How are 

these things protected? A patent on the material is meant to protect the owner’s work. 

Thomas Jefferson believed in the crucial role that knowledge and an educated populace 

play in making democracy work. Permission to borrow, copy, and photograph depends on 

conflicting elements of law, policy, economics, and technology. The digital dilemma is that 

the same technology that is making more current information available more quickly and 

completely also has the potential to demolish a careful balancing of public good and private 

interest that has emerged from the intellectual property law started by the U.S. Constitution. 

In today’s fast world of communication the government has tried to insure the integrity of 

works done with the mind. To stop the piracy of information, laws are changing every day. 

Marx however would not approve of modern intellectual property rights and would state 

that it is the cooperation of a capitalistic government helping the capitalist maximize profits 

and exploit workers. Intellectual property is an excuse by the government to assist modern 

corporations become monopolies and in turn maximize profit while exploit workers and 

increase surplus labor. 

In relation to chapter 12, Marx discusses the ways that the capitalists maximize profits 

and sales. He discusses that it is necessary for the capitalists to decrease the necessary labor 

by making the workers more efficient. The main example on how the capitalist does this 

is by innovation and bringing new technology. Thus the worker produces more products, 

increasing value, yet gets paid the same amount for the 8, 10, 12 hour day that the worker 

works. This capitalist now has an advantage and can reduce the price of his products to create 

more demand and still make more of a profit than the other capitalists. “The innovator has 

to lower the price to get room in the market for his increased output. Despite this price 

cut, he still sells the products above their individual values and therefore still makes an 

extra surplus-value.” They strive to increase surplus labor and constant innovation creates 

the competition in our marketplace.


However, “intellectual property rights” takes this competition away and allows the capitalist 

to become a monopoly giving the capitalist no incentive to lower their prices. Thus 

the capitalist still has a motive to innovate only to make more profits but does not face 

the usual competition. Quoting The Political Economy of Intellectual Property by Michael 

Perelman (Monthly Review Magazine www.monthlyreview.org/0103perelman.htm), “Intellectual 

property rights change the nature of competition. Most industries that do not enjoy 

the protection of intellectual property rights find themselves involved in intense competition, 

which lowers their profits. In contrast, companies with intellectual property rights face 

limited competition and can enjoy elevated profits.” “...Companies such as Nike, Microsoft, 

and Pfizer sell stuff that has high value relative to its weight only because their intellectual 

property rights insulate them from competition.” 

Just as the article suggests, these property rights inhibit our society from progressing in 

several ways. These rights create vast differences in social classes letting the rich (capitalists) 

only get richer while not distributing the wealth evenly over the other social classes. As 

I indicated earlier, giving these rights gives no incentive to innovate and develop new technology. 

A third reason why intellectual property is destructive to our society is the waste of 

money that is used in litigation for ridiculous claims. 

To sum all this up and quote the conclusion of the article, “So here is a property right 

that undermines science, burdens the economy with expensive litigation, and infringes on 

personal freedom. To make matters more absurd, public research forms the basis of the 

great advances in intellectual property. Yet the leaders of the capitalist world can find no 

better way to lift the rate of profit than to promote the expansion of intellectual property 

rights.” 


[1450] BonzoIsGod: graded A Intellectual Property Rights. I think that the term paper 

[1399] submitted by PAE, TimJim, and Pete was well thought out and covered some important 

relations between modern laws and Marx’s text. There was one “typographical” error in 

paragraph 3 in which it was stated “A patent on the material is meant to protect the owner’s 

work” in relation to the text above that was talking about books, music, DVD’s, etc. These 

are classified as copyrights, not patents because there wasn’t an actual invention, just the 

publishing of a work. 

These people (inventors, artists, etc.) see what they do as deserving some sort of protection 

for their work. But then you have individuals in society who get all up in arms because 

“meaningless litigation” is pursued to prevent this theft. If someone were to climb in the car 

in your driveway and drive off in it, you wouldn’t argue that “Oh, he can’t afford a car, so 

that’s okay.” There is something that everyone owns and would not be willing to let someone 

else take it from them. So why is the protection of ideas so abstract? 

I see intellectual property rights as an integral part of the protection of commodities in 

society. Maybe I am to much of a “capitalist” to see the arguments made. Companies such 

as Nike, Microsoft, and Pfizer have a wider IP portfolio than the little man because they have 

the capital to hire these inventors. But by having this portfolio, it isn’t prohibiting anyone 

else from patenting an idea. 


The constitutional clause on Intellectual Property states its purpose as to help the progression 

of science and technology. An inventor is not obligated to patent or copyright his/her 

work, but for publicly disclosing their idea, the government is willing to protect that individual 

for 20 years for a patent and the life of the authour plus 70 years for copyrights. Court 

cases have taken the stance that patents actually do promote competition in that the inventors 

goal is to attempt to “get around” a patent or copyright by changing an element of the idea. 

So to say that Intellectual Property is bad for capitalism is just wrong. 

Hans: The term paper authors did not claim that intellectual property was bad for capitalism, but that it supported 

capitalist profits at the expense of broader social interests. 


Question 541 is 237 in 1996sp, 289 in 1997WI, 354 in 1997sp, 515 in 2002fa, 535 in 



Question 541 Why can we gain a scientific understanding of “the sphere of competition” 

only after having grasped the inner nature of capital? 

[1212] Diggity: content A– form 97% I recently had knee surgery. The moments before 

the anesthetic kicked in and I was still concious, I was praying that the doctors knew what 

they were doing, that they woulldn’t mess anything up while operating on my knee. Then I 

thought of how many years of school they had to endure to be able to get to this point where 

they had the expertise of the body and the medications necessary to perform this particular 

procedure. 

I believe it is the same for economics. I would not trust someone who had not spent the 

time to learn from the books an individuals who understood the workings of producing, the 

markets, competition, and the effects of newer technology to make decisions that affect the 

economy as a whole. I have certain criticism of those individuals who influence our economy, 

but I do not completely understand the history and all of the factors to take into account 

when these decisions are made. To gain an understanding of the “sphere of competition” we 

must grasp the inner nature of capital “just as the apparent motions of the heavenly bodies 

can be understood only by someone who is acquainted with their real motions-which are not 

perceptible to the senses.” 

Hans: Besides the question whether the individuals who make the decisions about the economy have enough 

knowledge, there is also the other question: by what authority do they make these decisions? 

The most important decision for the economy is how much to invest and where. These decisions are made 

in secret in corporate board rooms. They should be democratic decisions. The utterly inadequate response of 

both private corporations and policy makers to the problem of global warming is, in my view, a warning sign that 

something is seriously wrong. 

By the way, the second sentence in your second paragraph is mal-formed. 


[1215] Mullin: “We don’t need to reinvent the wheel.” All too often this claim is thrown 

around in planning meetings as a reason to not need to delve further into the situation at 

hand. However, it could be said that this is an excuse rather than a reason and may in fact 

be impeding the innovation that is being sought after by management. Am I implying that 

at every given opportunity a group should be fully intent on “reinventing the wheel?” Of 

course not, this would not be an effective use of time. I am suggesting, however, that though


reinvention is not necessary a sound understanding of what makes the “wheel go round” is 

essential to not only the idea development but also the application of said idea. 

Marx implies that to fully understand “the sphere of competition” it must be preceded 

by a sound understanding of the inner nature of capital. In relation to the aforementioned 

example, it could be said that without this sound understanding we are stuck in an elementary 

perception of “the sphere of competition.” In other words we only accept that the 

competition which is thickly imbedded in capitalists makes the market go round but don’t 

fully comprehend what it is about the competition that motivates and drives each capitalist 

individual to beat out their competitors. 

Without a concerted effort to understand the inner nature of capital you will find yourself 

being stuck in the vicious cycle of capitalism where you might consider your competitive 

drive to be your motivation but it is in fact “how he experiences his subjugation to the laws 

of capital.” You will find yourself being subjected to a law that you can’t agree with because 

you don’t even understand it. This is not an effort take competition out of the market but to 

educate the market’s participants of why this “sphere of competition” exists and to provide 

you with a stronghold in this sphere as one that understands what makes it go round. 

Hans: About the “thickly embedded” competition: By competition, Marx does not mean the drive of the capitalist 

individuals to beat out their competitors, but the totality of surface interactions on the market. The question is 

therefore: would it be possible to understand capitalism without going below the surface? The answer in your third 

paragraph addresses exactly this, even though your starting point was a different definition of “competition” than 

Marx’s. 


[1238] DarkKnight: graded A Understanding Competition. I would like to add to Diggity’s 

comments, in [1212], when he talked about “not trust[ing] someone who had not spent 

the time to learn from the books an individuals who understood the workings of producing, 

the markets, competition, and the effects of newer technology to make decisions that affect 

the economy as a whole.” I presume the person Diggity doesn’t trust is “the capitalist”. 

I think the question refers to the capitalist’s lack of understanding of how “the sphere 

of competition” on the surface of the economy is affected by the underlying world of commodity 

production in which Marx describes the inner nature of capital. He believed that 

capitalists behave the way they do (competitively) because their frame of reference for making 

decisions is based on, as Hans puts it on page 408 of the Annotations, “how he [the 

capitalist] experiences his subjugation to the laws of capital”. Marx implies that capitalists 

act without a full understanding of the economic laws under which they operate when he 

says, “a scientific analysis of competition is possible only if we can grasp the inner nature of 

capital” [433:1]. Marx uses the terminology “scientific analysis” because understanding the 

competitive marketplace isn’t a simple process. The relationship between capitalist and the 

production processes that he owns and the worker and the labor-power he sells is complex. 

This relationship has an effect on how the capitalist competes in the marketplace, though he 

may not see it. The capitalist may not see that he is exploiting the workers he employs but 

that doesn’t change the fact that they are being exploited. 

Mullin has it right when he says, in [1215], “Without a concerted effort to understand the 

inner nature of capital you will find yourself being stuck in the vicious cycle of capitalism 


where you might consider your competitive drive to be your motivation but it is in fact ‘how 

he experiences his subjugation to the laws of capital.’” 

Competitive drive is exercised by exploitation as the capitalist strives to increase his share 

of surplus-value. Therefore, once you understand the inner nature of capital, you can see the 

sphere of competition in its true light. 

Hans: The competitive “I’m going to get rich or die trying” attitude would be viewed a psychological deviation in 

the absence of an exploitable working-class separated from the means of production. 

I like your explicit responses to the earlier submissions. I wish more class participants would do that. 


Question 542 is 589 in 2004fa, 595 in 2007SP, 585 in 2007fa, and 593 in 2008SP: 

Question 542 Is it necessary or useful for the capitalists themselves, in order to be more 

successful in competition, to know about the inner laws of “capital in general”? 

[1231] Overlord: It is both necessary and useful for a capitalist to know and understand 

the inner laws. Marx uses the inner laws of “capital in general” as a platform to understanding 

competition. He states “a scientific analysis of competition is possible only after the 

inner nature of capital has been understood.” 

I say it is both necessary and useful because any capitalist can stumble upon a good or 

great idea. If this person does not understand the inner laws of “capital in general” then 

they will be unable to understand the laws of competition and therefore unable to remain 

competitive. To know these laws is necessary to be competitive and useful to those who are 

currently planning to be competitive. 


[1232] Legolas: I do not necessarily agree with [1231] because Marx specifically does 

not go into the “sphere of competition,” even though it is necessary to understand ‘capital 

in general.’ Marx talks about the surface laws governing the individual capital but not the 

sublayers. If Marx had intended us to understand the inner laws of “capital in general” in 

order to understand success of competition he would have made it a point to explain in detail 

what it was. He is not wary of explaining in detail for an important point. 

Hans: You are right, things are not as clear-cut as Overlord said in [1231]. There was a long debate last year about 

this, see [2004fa:377]. 


Question 543 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, 596 in 2007SP, 586 in 2007fa, 598 in 2008fa, 627 in 2009fa, 

690 in 2010fa, 710 in 2011fa, 739 in 2012fa, and 690 in Answer: 

Question 543 Do the workers after introduction of new machinery produce more value per 

hour? 

[1197] Karlwho: graded A– After the introduction of new machinery for use in production 

of a commodity, one might assume that because more commodities are produced, more value 

is produced. This assumption is wrong. The capitalist produces more of his products - not 

more value. All the capitalist does is create more wealth.


A capitalist who is the first to use the new machinery in his market, can now make the 

commodity in less time and can therefore produce more of the commodity. One might 

think that this capitalist could then just keep his prices the same and make a greater profit. 

This is not true because he is now producing more, and needs to sell more. In order for the 

capitalist to sell more, he needs to lower his price. In so doing he sells above the commodity’s 

individual price and below the social price, which give the innovative capitalist extra surplus 

value. When other producers see that one competitor has cut prices and the buyers are 

drawn to the less expensive commodity, then the other producers discover that to keep sales 

and profits up, the other producers must lower their prices as well, that is, they must produce 

using the new machinery or more productive method. When the market has adopted the new 

machinery in its production, then the capitalist who was the originator of the more productive 

method loses his extra surplus value. With innovations, better methods of production, and 

new machinery, the worker’s subsistence becomes cheaper and cheaper, and so he can buy 

more with his wage - assuming he works the same amount of time as before. 

In conclusion, the introduction of new machinery to the market does not create more 

value, and thus the workers do not produce more value per hour. 

Hans: Even if the innovating capitalist cannot keep the price entirely the same, he will make more profit as long 

as his selling price is above his individual value. The source of this profit is the labor of his workers. I.e., in the 

interim time before the social value of the product has fallen to the innovator’s individual value, his workers do 

create more value per hour. 

Much of what I said in [2004fa:366] about Communistcow’s [2004fa:348] also applies to your answer. 

Message [1197] referenced by [1200], [1204], [1210], and [1785]. Next Message by Karlwho is [1625]. 

[1200] MrPink: graded B On the contrary to what Karlwho said in to [1197], the introduction 

of new machines or innovative production does allow for the worker to create more 

value. The machine provides constant capital which enhances the worker’s value because 

he/she can produce more. One example can be that the capitalist accumulates wealth because 

of the worker’s production. This wealth is then used to invest in new machinery or 

technology. The worker’s first stage of labor allows for value to be realized by the purchase 

of the constant capital. 

However, I agree that the capitalist who first takes advantage of the new innovation can 

benefit in the short term due to extra surplus value. Additionally, other producers will find 

ways to catch up to the new technology. One important point is that once the market has 

realized the new technology the market’s social value may decrease (assuming prices decrease). 

In regards to the comments about the worker’s wages; they in fact will not decrease but 

rather remain the same. This is due to the capitalists’ utilization of the extra surplus. 

Hans: It is a central point in Marx’s theory that labor of higher productivity does not produce more value. 

This simple fact, if true, has important implications. 

(1) Capitalists cannot justify their profits by saying that their machine made the workers more productive. 

(2) Value is not a good measuring stick for wealth, because one can have more wealth with less value. 

After having said all this, I must concede that your answer that the workers produce more value is still correct, 

at least in the short run. Only the reason which you give for it is incorrect. The reason is not that the workers are 

more productive, but the reason is only that the labor operating an exceptional machine is not equal to the other 

labors. As soon as the machine is no longer exceptional, the labor loses its ability to produce more value than the 

other labors, despite its higher productivity. 

Message [1200] referenced by [1204]. Next Message by MrPink is [1206]. 


[1204] Jingle: graded B+ I believe in the total oposite of what MrPink has said in [1200], 

but I totally agree with what Karlwho has said in [1197]. 

The introduction of new machinery to the market does not create more value, and the 

workers do not produce more value per hour. When you are one of the first people to have 

the new machinery you will be able to make more of the product, but you will also have to 

decrease the price of the product, and later, once other capitalists find out that they can make 

more money and more output with the new machinery they will go out and buy that new 

machinery. The second capitalist will lower their prices of the product and we are all back 

to square one, and back in a complete capitalist market. 

I guess one of the fears to having new machines in a business is that you might get the idea 

that the worker will not work as hard, because they have those machines that do the work 

for them, and with the new addition of these machines the worker is expected to produce 

more. If the worker doesn’t work as hard then the capitalist can cut the wages to solve this 

problem. Cutting the wages is called a relative surplus value. The extra surplus value is 

when the workers are using the machines and not the machine itself. 

The machinery does not produce more value per hour. It just makes the hours a lot more 

efficient. 

Hans: The primary source of relative surplus-value is not that the workers working the machinery have easier work 

and therefore get paid less, but that the machine cheapens the worker’s means of consumption, and therefore the 

workers can survive on a lower wage. 

Message [1204] referenced by [1206]. Next Message by Jingle is [1278]. 

[1206] MrPink: In response to [1204]: 

Like both Jingle and Karlwho I initially assumed that the answer would be no. I asked 

Michael if my assumption was correct in Thursday’s discussion class, it was not. 

Additionally, I do not think that the machinery produces more value, rather it is the 

worker. 

Again this is my understanding based on the Annotations and yesterday’s class discussion. 


[1208] Matt: I agree with Karlwho and Jingle in their response that the addition of new 

machinery will not lead workers to produce more value per hour. I think in particular Jingle 

summed up the question quite well in the last sentence of his response when he states that 

the new machinary will only make the hours more efficient. I think Marx makes this concept 

very clear in his example of 1 hours labor is embodied in 12 cents, and a value of $1.44 will 

be produced in a 12 hour day. In this example he states that making an article takes one hour 

so essentially it has a value of 12 cents because that is the value of the hour of labor. He later 

talks about a new means of production in which 2 articles can be produced in an hour. Marx 

then states that even though the productivity of the labor has doubled, the day’s labor creates 

no more new value than before, namely, $1.44. Looking at this example we can see the 

effects of adding a new machine. If you were to add new machinery this would only change 

the method in which you produce an article. The same amount of labor would be going into 

each hour just as before, the only difference is that now your labor is more efficient with this 

new machinery that allows you to produce more. Marx makes this very clear that the value


of each hour is still 12 cents but each article now has embodied in it 1/24th of the new value 

instead of 1/12th so only the value of the article changes to 6 cents but the value of the hours 

remains the same. So ultimately the producer of the articles has only made the hour more 

efficient without actually changing the value of the hour. 

Hans: Instead of “value of the hour” you should say “value produced by the hour of labor.” 

I am surprised that MrPink’s [1206], which was posted over 5 hours before your own answer, did not cause you 

to rethink your answer or at least get a comment from you. 


[1210] Michael: Individual Versus Social Value. Here are my views on Question 543. 

As usual, feel free to disagree. 

The new method of production produces more articles per hour than the old method. 

Hence, (only) in each of these articles there is less individual value than before. But as the 

value is the amount of socially necessary labor-time, while what amount of time is socially 

necessary depends on the prevalent mode of production, we see that the value per article 

does not (immediately) change under the new method of production. However, that is of 

course different from saying that the value produced per hour is the same as before. The 

value produced per hour is greater under method B than under A. This is because, again, 

the (social) value of the articles produced are determined by the productivity associated with 

method A (because A is presently the normal way to make these articles), while twice as 

many of the articles are produced per unit time under B as under A. So since the value of 

each article is 24 cents, value produced per hour under B is 24 cents per hour times 12 hours 

per workday times 2 articles per hour = 576 cents per workday, while the value produced 

under A is 24 cents per hour times 12 hours per workday times 1 article per hour = 288 cents 

per workday. 

Now, that is in the short run, i.e., before the competition is compelled to adopt a similarly 

efficient mode of production. The effect of this catching up by the other producers will 

be that this new degree of productivity will become the new basis for calculating socially 

necessary labor time. That is, the value of the articles will now reflect this new level of 

efficiency, so that the value produced per hour by the capitalist who initiated B is now the 

same as the value produced per hour by the other capitalists and this value is the same as 

before (288, but instead of 288 = 12 times 12 times 1, we have 288 = 24 times 6 times 2, 

since the value produced per hour will now be 6 instead of 12 while we produce 2 per hour 

instead of one). 

The above discussion is related to profits and prices in the following way: As Karlwho 

mentions [1197], the price which is set by the capitalist under mode B will lie somewhere 

between the price corresponding to the article’s social value (Ps) and the price corresponding 

to the article’s individual value (Pi). Marx argues that the price p2 must be strictly less than 

Pi, because there are now 12 additional articles on the market per workday which must be 

sold. The induced competition leads to prices corresponding to the value prevailing under 

the new standard of efficiency (that is, from 24 cents to 18 cents). 

Now, what happens to the wage? Well, the wage is the money form of the value of the 

subsistence bundle. Therefore the value of this bundle changes as the value of the commodities 

it contains. Since all capitalists are striving to innovate (to capture extra surplus 


value), then insofar as they are successful and to the extent that the successful capitalists 

are the ones who produce those goods that the worker consumes, it follows that the result 

will be a decreasing value of the subsistence bundle. That says that the worker’s nominal 

(but not real) wage has decreased (the real wage cannot be decreased in a sustainable way, 

since it is a subsistence wage). So, surplus-value does not return to it’s former level, as did 

values produced per hour, since the capitalists gain a permanent reduction in the value of 

labor-power. 

So the answer is: yes, more value is produced per hour under the new mode of production, 

despite the fact that this will eventually be eroded by the forces of competition, acting to reset 

the social value of the article in question. 

Hans: I agree with this answer, see my [2001fa:320]. 


[1375] Surferboy: Of course the workers produce more value per hour. If in an hour they 

were only producing one article and after the introduction of new machinery they double 

their production and are making two articles per hour. The cost of labor is 12 cents and cost 

to make the article is 12 cents, but after the new machinery is introduced and two articles are 

produced which cuts the cost to make the article in half to 6 cents, the value of the article has 

decreased. The capitalist however has the advantage of surplus that generates more wealth 

for him. All in all the workers have increased the capital that the capitalist has to market 

thus increasing value of his worth. 

Message [1375] referenced by [1387]. Next Message by Surferboy is [1472]. 

[1387] Hans: Cost and value. In [1375], Surferboy presents the common-sense view of 

the production process, which does not see that labor is the source of surplus-value. Please 

read this, I am sure Surferboy is not the only class participant who thinks that this commonsense 

view is shared by Marx. 

The main theoretical error which allows Surferboy to arrive at an erroneous result is in 

this case the confusion of costs and value. Marx writes in his example in 433:2/oo that an 

hour’s labor is embodied in 12 cents. He means by this that the value created by one hour’s 

labor is 12 cents. In Marx’s example, the materials going into each widget have a value of 

12 cents, and due to the labor performed on this widget, the widget itself can be sold on 

the market for 24 cents. The difference between the value of the widget, i.e. 24 cents, and 

the value pre-existing in the materials, i.e. 12 cents, is the value newly created by the labor, 

namely 12 cents. 

Surferboy however seems to think Marx has written that “the cost of labor is 12 cents”. 

This is wrong; the wage cost of one hour of labor is only 6 cents. For the capitalist, therefore, 

the cost per widget is 18 cents (12 for materials and 6 for labor), and the selling price is 24 

cents, leaving a profit of 6 cents. For 12 widgets, the total profit is therefore 72 cents. 

Marx asks now what happens if the productivity of labor doubles and only 1/2 hour of 

direct labor is required per widget. Instead of 12 widgets, the total output is now 24 widgets 

per twelve-hour day. The value of the widget is now 18 cents (12 + 6), the cost to the 

capitalist 15 cents (12 + 3), the profit per widget 3 cents, and the total profit per day is again 

72 cents (24 x 3). The capitalist is therefore no better off. Actually he is worse off, because 

now he has to buy $2.88 worth of raw materials every day, instead of $1.44, to sustain a


production which gives him the same amount of profits. This is why I said in [1298] that 

the capitalists, with their relentless drive to innovate, saw off the branch on which they are 

sitting. 

Surferboy simplifies the example a little, just like Matt did in [1208], by assuming that 

there are no materials. He also ends up saying that the value of the widgets has declined. 

But then he adds: “The capitalist however has the advantage of surplus that generates more 

wealth for him.” Apparently, Surferboy locates this surplus outside the product’s value, i.e., 

he assumes that the capitalist can still sell the widget at 24 cents, that only cost declined, not 

the value. Once more a confusion of cost and value. 

It is common sense to try to explain value by cost. People do this all the time, even though 

it is a circular argument, since the costs of one product are nothing but the values of other 

products. In Marx’s theory, the missing link is labor: it is true that labor adds to the cost of 

the article, but it also adds to the value of the article. And unlike the means of production, 

the amount labor adds to the value is bigger than the amount it adds to the cost. 

Message [1387] referenced by [1709], [1716], [1811], and [1869]. Next Message by Hans is [1402]. 

[1426] Bboarder: When new machinery is available to a laborer for production of a commodity 

you would assume that because more value is produced because more commodities 

are produced. However the laborer produces more products not more value. The reason for 

this the more value per hour does not occur is because the capitalist is producing more he 

must sell more, and this causes the capitalist to reduce prices to sell more. The machinery 

does not produce more value per hour. It just makes the hours a lot more efficient. 


[1508] Bob: It appears that with new machinery workers are creating more value per hour 

because more commodities are being generated. For the capitalists, in the short run, this 

will increase the value of his workers that produce more per hour. Of course after this new 

machinery is introduced the competing firms will try to increase their value as well with 

other machinery. The initial firm with the machine will be able to lower costs because it will 

cost them less to produce each commodity. Once the market catches up the prices will be 

driven down for that commodity. In summary, the answer is yes the workers produce more 

value per hour with the introduction of new machinery. 

Final Grading Note by Hans: You were incredibly thorough at the very beginning, but after this, your commitment 

to understanding the text quickly fizzled out. One cannot understand capitalism by staring at the first two 

sections of the commodity chapter. Often, the meaning of the beginning only becomes apparent after one has 

delved into the body of the beast. 

First Message by Bob is [45]. 

[1531] Tesa: graded A+ value per laborer per hour. The deciding factor in this question 

is whether the machinery is used universally by all producers of a particular commodity or 

only by a fraction of them. 

In the case where only a fraction use the machinery, value produced per machine-using 

worker per hour goes up while the value produced by non-machine using workers per hour 

goes proportionally down, so the total value remains constant. This is because value is 

based on the total amount of human labor that goes into producing all commodities of the 

same type. Machinery that reduces the amount of laborers, ie replaces laborers, but still 

produces the same amount of commodities, reduces the total value of all the commodities. 


For example, assume there are 2 factories world-wide producing eyelash trimmers, and each 

employs 12 people. One factory introduces machinery such that one person can produce 

all the trimmers the factory can sell, so they lay off 11 of their workers. Now, the value of 

an eyelash trimmer is 13/24 of what it was before, because it takes that much less labor to 

produce the global supply. Half of that value is still produced by each factory, so the single 

worker is now producing much more value than he was before, even though his factory now 

is producing less value. If the factory instead kept all the employees and put them each on a 

machine, its total produced value would go up while the other factory’s total produced value 

would go down, because the total amount of value in the system is staying the same, but one 

factory is producing the vast majority of it. 

In the case where all workers (i.e. both eyelash-trimmer factories) start using the machinery, 

the value produced per worker per hour stays the same, and the value per commodity 

goes down. 

Final Grading Note by Hans: This is an excellent very creative solution. And it is not the only one. I have the 

impression you learned something in this class and your answers got better over time. 

Message [1531] referenced by [2007SP:1103]. Next Message by Tesa is [1532]. 

[1545] Guerito: graded C After the introduction of new machinery the capitalist is receiving 

more value per hour because of an increase in output but with the assistance of the 

machine. The production has become more efficient but not by an increase in skill from 

the worker, the new technology is the main factor in the increase of value per hour. The 

worker may feel he is producing more value since he was a witness of the before and after. 

The surplus value is temporary and harvested by the capitalist who implemented the new 

technology before his competitors. 

Hans: Marx expressly denies that machines produce value. 

Message [1545] referenced by [1932]. Next Message by Guerito is [1546]. 

[1557] Thugtorious: graded A Machinery and Value. The introduction of machinery 

brings greater efficiency initially for production. The firm that first introduces the technology 

may receive a “honeymoon” or grace period of higher profits, but the technology or 

technique will diffuse throughout the industry and bring profit rates down to a long run rate. 

But, the technology does not aid in producing more value per hour. The laborer may produce 

more units per hour, but these successive units are produced at a lower cost which is also 

reflected in its price when it goes to the market. Over time, the standardization of this new 

technology/technique decreses the costs for all and increases the output. Therefore, the commodity 

is produced/sold at a cheaper cost/price, and the machinery does not aid in creating 

more value per hour. 


[1578] Dandy: Worker/Machinery. The question, do workers after production of machinery 

produce more value per hour needs to be discussed in two phases. First phase is 

when he alone is producing more effectively and the second phase is when others have 

copied the new production methods. 

The capitalist uses new production methods so that he can get more surplus value. Instead 

what he does is produce more of the product whose value remains the same. This creates a 

surplus. As Marx describes this condition he uses the term “individual value”. The individual 

value is a value that is lower than the social value because of lower costs of production


and shorter social labor. Although he may realize a certain amount of increase, a greater 

problem arises of excess commodities that must be sold. His solution is to drop the price 

but still sell above the individual values. By virtue of volume he will see an increase. This 

is called extra surplus value. At this phase workers using new machines do produce more 

value per hour than other workers. 

After a period of time the second phase goes into effect. Everybody’s extra surplus value 

is only temporary because of competition. When other competitors see and copy production 

methods this causes the social value of the product to fall. As the situation equalizes we 

find that more value is not created but labor time is shortened. Workers at this stage do not 

produce more value. 

The end result is the capitalist is able to replace the value production by hour of labor 

with a smaller portion of the value of the daily product. The worker’s time is shortened, but 

they are able to survive on a cheaper product. 

Hans: I think what you mean in your last paragraph (and this is the right way to look at it, according to Marx): if 

everything is cheaper capitalists can cut wages. Therefore their profits go up even though the total value produced 

per day does not go up. 


[1610] Bosox: No, workers do not produce more value per hour after the introduction of 

new machinery. The capitalist produces more of his products, not more value. The capitalist 

has created more wealth. 

As the capitalist is able to produce more of the commodity he drops the price to sell 

what he has produced. Initially the capitalist will make increased profits until the second 

capitalist notices this and gets the new machinery, increases his production and lowers his 

price. Overall, the new machinery does not produce more value per hour, it just makes the 

hours more efficient. 


[1642] Ash: graded B+ No, workers actually produce less value per hour after new machinery. 

This is where Marx came up with the concept of relative-surplus value. The worker 

without technology adds $6 to the value of a commodity, but with new technology only adds 

$3 to the value. The producer makes the same amount of money, but has a less-productive 

worker. In other words, the producer ends up paying more for the labor-power of the worker 

with the new technology. 

Hans: You are overlooking two things. (1) although the worker only adds $3 to the value of each product, he 

produces twice as many products per hour, i.e., the total value added is the same. (2) since everything is cheaper, 

the capitalist can pay the worker a lower wage, and therefore a greater proportion of the labor day is surplus-labor. 

Final Grading Note by Hans: You are a good and independent thinker. You seem to be reading Marx for the 

ideas expressed without bothering to learn the terminology and the concepts. This has pros and cons. On the one 

hand it keeps you independent, because concepts can be very powerful in opening up certain ways of thinking and 

closing down others, without the individual necessarily being aware of it. On the other you are losing the benefit of 

learning new concepts which may ultimately enrich your thinking. 

I was wondering why you didn’t write a term paper submission or respond to others, which is a condition for 

getting an A or A-. But after reading your term paper [1640] I realize that you don’t like bonus gimmicks. 


[1651] Gutter: graded C+ The addition of new machinery enables the worker to produce 

more output per hour, yes, however according to the workers themselves, it does not increase 


the value of their labor because they could be putting forth the same amount of effort or even 

less due to the convenience of the machine, but it is the machine that creates the increase in 

output. 

Hans: In Marx’s theory there is a big difference between the value of a worker’s labor (his or her wage) and the 

value created by the worker’s labor. 


[1674] Tomek: The introduction of new machinery does not produce more value per hour 

per worker. The new machinery will produce more output, however, since the new value 

produced is the same, the value of every piece falls. The value essentially would be the 

amount of labour it took to produce the good. Different factors such as the efficiency of the 

workers would influence the production. Another factor is that labor has to be skilled. For 

example, certain goods and services take x hours to produce the value and the individual’s 

labor would be exactly that of x hours. Marx’s “perfect” capitalist pays the exact value of 

the individual’s labour. The surplus value is just profit obviously; so is getting the maximum 

output for the input. 

Hans: It is clearer in your in-class text than in this resubmission that you think the workers produces the part of 

the value of the end product which pays for the wages, and the machine produces the other part which give profit. 

Marx would consider it commodity fetishism to think that machines produce vaulue. 


[1693] TriPod: I would say that when a new machinery is introduced that more value is 

created. Because with new machinery comes more output and with more output that means 

as long as you keep the prices the same as before you will make more money because you 

have more product. With innovation and with time you will be forced to lower your prices. 

You will have more supply which means less demand but to begin with you will make more 

money. In [2004fa:366] Hans says two things: 

1. after the introduction of new machinery by a single capitalist in a market, a worker 

does not produce more value per hour. 

2. in the short run (after the introduction of the new machinery) more surplus-value is 

created by the worker who operates the machinery. 

Hans: These two points are a quote from [2004fa:348]. I pointed out that they contradict each other and tried to 

make sense of this apparent contradiction. This is certainly not the soundbyte about it which you should memorize. 


[1708] Jerm: The workers do not produce more value after the introduction of new machinery. 

The worker uses less labor after the introduction of new machinery. So the value 

is spread out among more commodities produced. The machinery does not create value, it 

passes it on to the commodity produced through depreciation. 


[1715] Sparrow: After the introduction of new machinery workers do not produce more 

value per hour. The value produced by the worker is the same as it was previously. The total 

value for the day would remain the same, but with more units being produced, the value of 

each commodity would be less. 


[1724] COMMI: Yes, workers do produce more value per hour after the introduction 

of new machinery. Given that this new machinery allows them to produce more per hour 

relative to other workers in the industry. This will only occur in the short run as competition


in the market will soon be eroded. This will reset to the social value of the product in 

question in the long run and eventually they will not produce more per hour. 


[1730] Surferboy: Although it appears that after the introduction of new machinery produces 

more value per hour, the increase of more commodities per hour because of new 

machinery is only temporary until other capitalists use the same method of production. The 

advances in new machinery then become ordinary and are equal to what the other capitalists 

are producing. The introduction of new machinery only benefits the first capitalist that finds 

that new means of production, and that capitlist will have to lower prices to sell the surplus 

of goods created by the new machinery. All in all, the early bird gets the worm. 

Final Grading Note by Hans: This answer stripped out the concept of value entirely. Such mistakes are not 

accidents if committed by someone who does not think they have to do homeworks. 


[1733] Manchu: Workers that acquire new machinery do not produce more value per hour. 

Machinery speeds up the production process and more commodities or wealth is produced 

from a day’s work, but the labor that went into the commodity hasn’t increased. The increase 

of similar commodities will actually cause a decrease in exchange value because of the 

increased supply. 

Hans: It does not seem that you have thought it through. 


[1734] Phatteus: Introducing new machinery does increase the amount of value produced 

per hour. This is due to the new mode of producing the commodity. Value is determined 

by the socially necessary labor time needed to produce the commodity. If this time it takes 

to produce a commodity is reduced, the value per hour increases based on the increase in 

productivity. This does change in the long run due to competition and other factors (other 

costs), but initially the value per hour is increased due to the amount that the workers are 

able to produce. 

Hans: What you are writing seems illogical. How can increases in productivity increase value if value depends on 

labor-time? The labor-time of an 8-hour day is still the same. 


[1738] Stretch: Workers do not produce more with the introduction of new machinery. 

It could be said that a factory produces more when it obtains machinery, but with new machinery 

often comes lay-offs of human workers. Therefore it is the machines not the people 

that produce more value per hour. If a worker uses a piece of machinery, he may become 

more productive, but you have to take into consideration the fact that the machine he uses 

does the work of two other men or whatever the case maybe. Machinery is often much more 

expensive than human labor-power. 

Hans: What you write contradicts the most basic parts of Marx’s theory. 

First Message by Stretch is [334]. 

[1785] Mason: In-class Answer 

The amount of value produced by say an hour of Labor power will increase, but the value 

created by labour can be seen in reflected in the value of commodities that were produced 

by labour-power. Even though this new machinery may increase the anount of commodity 

produced, it will in effect decrease the amount of value per hour. Because when you produce 


more and more an hour the value will thus decrease, because not as much work will go into 

the commodity. the increase in efficiency will equal less labor, which exists lower wage. 

I believe that I answered the question right in the fact that you will produce more but 

the value will be less. But as the other entries have pointed out if one capitalist creates a 

new machine to produce more in less time. His workers now produce more an hour but the 

actual value is less. Hans states that Marx’s theory that labor of higher productivity does 

not produce more value. And also the capitalist must now make room for his surplus of 

extra product. He does this by lowering his prices which cause the other producers to lower 

theirs as well. Now there must be twice the demand for the product because you are now 

producing twice as much. Now the capitalist has extra surplus value through his sales. But 

this will get less when his competitors get ahold of this new machine which will cause his 

extra surplus value to go down. Much like Hans said in [1197] “the source of this profit is 

the labors of his workers. In the interim time before the social value of the product has fallen 

to the innovator’s individual value. His workers do create more value per hour.” This is what 

I was trying to say but just couldn’t find the exact words to say it in on the test. 

Hans: Even in your resubmission, without the time pressure of the exam, you could not make a coherent argument. 

No wonder the in-exam text was as chaotic as it was. 


[1823] Diggity: graded C+ Original answer: 

With the introduction of new machinery, the workers can increase the amount oproduced 

per hour. This does not necessarily mean more value. The amount of labor put in will be 

equal to the value produced. The introduction of the machinery also represents the labor 

necessary to develop and produce that machine. Value is not increased 

Comments: Although my answer was short, the main point was reached. That the overall 

value is not increased, but there is an increase in wealth. In reading other contributions from 

the archive from 2004 and Hans’ response, it is pointed out that society does not reward the 

capitalist for this achievement. Rather, society rewards the capitalists from their fraud and 

deception in producing shabby products that may be environmently hazardous. Rather, the 

labor force is attacked at their wages and forcing them to work more. 

Hans: That value is not increased is the short answer. The long answer says that temporarily value is increased 

(extra surplus-value). 

First Message by Diggity is [320]. 

Question 545 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, 

598 in 2007SP, 588 in 2007fa, 596 in 2008SP, 600 in 2008fa, 712 in 2011fa, and 741 in 

2012fa: 

Question 545 What is extra surplus-value? How is it related to relative surplus-value? 

[1186] Gdubmoe: graded A Extra surplus-value is anything that will increase a capitalist’s 

profit but has not yet been used in the market by other capitalists. An example of extra 

surplus-value could be an increase in the productivity of labor which would make production 

more efficient and thus drive production costs down and profits would be higher for the 

capitalist.


When other capitalists learn of the new cost-saving methods then they also use it to their 

benefit. This in return enhances competition and drives the sales price of the good down. 

This is the end of the extra surplus-value. But to the extent that the price of the wage goods 

is driven down as well, it becomes relative surplus-value. All capitalists then benefit from 

this common knowledge. 

Extra surplus-value is only experienced by a capitalist and extremely beneficial for a 

short period of time until other capitalists use the same methods or theories. It is related 

to relative surplus-value because once other capitalists use the same knowledge it becomes 

relative surplus-value. Relative surplus-value is extra surplus-value once the extra surplusvalue 

becomes common knowledge and is useful to all capitalists. 

Hans: I edited the second paragraph for clarity. Originally it read: 

When other capitalists learn of the new cost-saving methods then they also use it to their 

benefit. This in return enhances competition and drives the price of wage goods down. All 

capitalists then benefit from this common knowledge. 

Message [1186] referenced by [1330] and [2007fa:423]. Next Message by Gdubmoe is [1511]. 

[1237] Manchu: Extra surplus value comes from a shortening of the necessary labor or 

selling products above their individual values and has particular importance to those who 

produce workers’ means of consumption, because this extra surplus-value is reborn as relative 

surplus-value which shows extra surplus value as somewhat preemptive to relative surplus 

value. It could be considered causal in that whenever you have an excess surplus value, 

that is not competed away or used for other means, then you will have a relative surplus 

value. Capitalists are motivated to innovate to gain extra said extra surplus. 

Hans: Your first sentence confounds extra surplus-value and relative surplus-value. The surplus value which comes 

from a shortening of the necessary labor is called “relative surplus-value”; extra surplus-value is that which comes 

from selling products above their individual values. 

It does not matter for extra surplus-value whether or not the goods enter the workers’ consumption. This 

circumstance only becomes relevant when the extra surplus-value is competed away and the question arises whether 

the lower prices benefit the capitalists in the form of relative surplus-value. 

Manchu: Hey Hans, I’ve really been struggling here to get the grades I’m hoping for. I was wondering what I 

could do better. It seems that the content is never right, but do you grade on length too? I’m having the hardest time 

understanding Mr Marx even though I do the reading. Do you live by the thema, “More is better” or am I digging 

a hole by writing information that might not be correct? 

Hans: I just looked at all your answers and discovered that you got extensive comments back from me on almost 

all of them. I apologize, I did not mean to nitpick you to death. I think I was moved to give you this extensive 

feedback because you do read the Annotations, but you never seem to fully understand what they say, therefore 

your answers are to some extent always just guesses. 

Unfortunately, Marx is different enough from what we learn from other sources that guessing often doesn’t 

work. 

If you have the impression that the content of your answers is “never right,” this explains your defensive formulations 

such as: “extra surplus value [is] somewhat preemptive to relative surplus value.” You probably thought 

this is something to which I would not be able to object, but when I read this my first thought was: “this is fluff.” 

I had the impression that you were trying to say something that sounds intelligent without taking the trouble of 

understanding the mechanics of extra and relative surplus-value. Your sentence “whenever you have an excess 

surplus value, that is not competed away or used for other means, then you will have a relative surplus value” is not 

a good summary of the relation between the two. Their relation is not that difficult to understand, and I have the 

impression you are spending more energy trying to avoid the trouble of getting this relationship right than it would 

take you to face the problem head-on and understand what is going on. 

Before I give the final grade for the class I always go through all the submissions of the participant in order to 

get a better idea of the overall performance. I would realize that a fair grade for you would have to be higher than 


the average of the grades you received. You are different than the others, and this worked against you. On the one 

hand, you have participated a lot and consistently. Secondly, you read the Annotations; most participants who want 

to cut corners don’t read the Annotations and just follow the class discussion. Third, you choose interesting and 

difficult questions. Someone who comes to this class in order to get an easy grade is very careful to only select 

boring or philosophical questions which will not reveal that they don’t understand the material. 

I think the main thing you should take away from this experience is that you have more than enough brains to 

understand what is going on, and that it is possible to get correct answers for most of the questions without evasions 

or guesswork. 

Let’s do the following experiment. During the extra credit period I’d like you to submit a terse answer to 

question 535 and a corrected answer to 545. I am sure you will be able to write answers for which you get an A or 

A–. If you succeed, I will give you the opportunity to re-submit answers to the questions before the first exam, but 

this will have to wait until after the second exam, so that the other class participants are not confused or disctracted. 

It is entirely possible that you will end up with an A in this class. 

Final Grading Note by Hans: Unfortunately you did not take me up on my offer. Your [1732] is excellent, and 

[1733] started right but mixed in some wrong steps. 


[1330] Dandy: comments on extra surplus-value. In response to Gdubmoe [1186] this 

person states that extra surplus-value is anything that will increase a capitalist profit but has 

not yet been used in the market by other capitalists. Gdubmoe says that when capitalists 

learn of a new cost saving methods then they also use it to their benefit and it ceases to be 

extra surplus-value. This is correct but I do feel that he could expand his thoughts. 

It should be stressed that extra surplus value is a short-lived value that disappears when 

competitors catch up in their production techniques. It then becomes relative surplus value. 

Does this mean that the increase in productivity has no lasting effect? Yes it does have a 

lasting effect in that the whole process affects the general rate of surplus value. The end 

result is that the competition lowers the price of wage goods, this extra surplus value does 

not totally disappear but becomes relative surplus value benefiting all capitalists. 

Hans: Extra credit assignments must be comprehensive summaries of all the answers submitted, not one remark 

about one answer. If you know that a specific answer was wrong, it should either be omitted from your summary, 

or perhaps mentioned under: “some people wrote so and so, but this is wrong for such and such reasons.” 


[1956] Fidel: Extra surplus value is the surge forward of profits before it settles back into 

relative surplus value. The “extra” is a temporary state of competitive advantage where one 

capitalist has better knowledge, processes, or labor productivity than competing capitalists. 

This enables an extra surplus value until the other capitalists learn or copy that competitive 

advantage. Relative surplus value is representative of the surplus value achieved by competing 

capitalists within an industry. In capitalistic terminology it is the expected “profit 

margin”. Essentially it is the value taken by the capitalist in the exchange between labor and 

labor-power. 

Hans: Your definition of extra surplus-value is good, but that of relative surplus-value isn’t. 


Question 547 is 606 in 2008fa, 635 in 2009fa, 698 in 2010fa, and 747 in 2012fa: 

Question 547 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?


[1239] Robgodfell: (graded A) Surplus Dilemma in a world of Sticky Wages and Prices. 

Could someone please explain a dilemma that I have in my head please: Marx says 436:1/o 

that “Capital therefore has an immanent drive. . . towards increasing the productivity of labor, 

in order to cheapen commodities and, by cheapening commodities, to cheapen the worker 

himself.” 

Now I assume that to “cheapen” the laborer this requires being able to pay a decreased 

necessary labor-reproduction wage, however, wouldn’t this surplus-value only be realized 

(especially in an age of contracted wages and menu prices) when wages are renegotiated in 

the future? Ergo, the capitalist doesn’t initially benefit with extra-surplus labor but relative 

surplus labor which is necessarily smaller than the former? 

Help. SOS. No paddle. 

Robgodfell 

Hans: Very good question. This was originally sent to the free discussion list, but I made it a homework question 

for future Semesters. Assume we are under the gold standard, and there is uniform technical progress, i.e., all 

commodities require less and less labor. Since gold is a commodity too, relative prices do not fall, but each ounce 

of gold represents less and less labor. Wages will not fall either, but the workers will take a shorter time each day 

to reproduce the equivalent of their wages, and therefore will work a longer time for the capitalist. In other words, 

it is possible to have relative surplus-value without falling wages even under the gold standard. 

Message [1239] referenced by [2008fa:828] and [2009fa:748]. Next Message by Robgodfell is [1240]. 

Question 550 is 212 in 1995WI, 243 in 1996ut, 297 in 1997WI, 368 in 1998WI, 369 in 


Question 550 Does the continual striving by the capitalists to lower the value of their products 

contradict the basic tenet of the labor theory of value that they are only interested in 

value, not use-value? 

[1222] Aaron: It does relatively speaking because the capitalist is striving to reduce the 

amount of labor required in production. Namely the portion of the work devoted to paying 

back the worker versus the portion that is surplus for the capitalist, in relation to the quantity 

of product that can be produced in that time period. As the value of the product decreases 

with the addition of increased productivity this drives the price down in the market and thus 

the capitalist can increase the amount of market share or volume that he is able to sell. In 

doing this he is able to gain from the surplus attached to each product that already pays back 

the value. When the value is reduced more can be sold, meaning more surplus value can be 

recognized. So on the surface they are only interested in value, with regards to the surplus 

value that they receive, not so much the use-value. 

Hans: Your argument seems to be that the capitalists are not interested in value per se but in surplus-value, and 

surplus-value can be increased by cost cutting. Therefore no contradiction. 


[1226] Thelonius: It is not the objective of the capitalist to drive down the value of 

their products, but to maximize the amount of surplus-value generated in production by 

implementing innovation for greater efficiency. Though it is held as true that, by increasing 

productivity, the price of the commodity being produced falls over time. The innovation used 

to decrease the labor-value of the wage worker (increase surplus-value), while producing 

the neccesary number of commodities, will eventually be implemented by the capitalist’s 


competitors, and thereby decrease the market value of a commodity. Since wage workers 

are also the consumers of the capitalist’s commodity, an equilibrium between wages paid 

and cost of living occurs over time. However, there is a short term profit gained by the 

capitalist during the period of time in which that producer had a competetive advantage over 

the competition, and it is this profit (increased surplus-value), that the capitalist wishes to 

take advantage of. So, while increasing productivity may drive the prices of commodities 

downward overall, in the short term capitalists do not seek to cheapen the market value of 

their commodity, but to take advantage of profits produced by the surplus-value generated 

from increased production efficiency (decrease in necessary wages paid per production unit). 

Hans: Your sentences are complex enough that they require careful punctuation with commas etc. I did this for 

you here, please compare with the original in 

http://marx.econ.utah.edu/pipermail/economics-5080/Week-of-Mon-20051031/001033.html 


[1229] FranciscoVilla: Response to [1226]: 

Capitalist strive to lower the cost of producing their products. This include the capitalization 

of labor as a commodity which goes along with the labor division concept. 

Hans: The replacement of laborers by machines is rational from the point of view of production but, if the labor 

theory of value is correct, it is irrational from the point of view of profits, as I tried to explain in [1298]. 

Next Message by FranciscoVilla is [1266]. 

[1298] Hans: Slaughtering your cow to get more milk. None of the three answers 

found it troubling at all that capitalists, in order to get more profits, like to lay off workers. 

The capitalists themselves cannot see the irrationality of this because they are not aware that 

laborers do not simply add their costs to the value of the product, but they are the sole source 

of this value. To a Marxist, on the other hand, with his or her X-ray vision beneath the 

surface, this looks like the capitalists are sawing off the branch on which they are sitting. 

By a lucky coincidence, the whole system does not come crashing down on the capitalists 

despite this contradictory behavior because, unbeknownst to them, their relentless drive to 

cut costs indeed increases their surplus-value in a roundabout way: by the mechanism which 

Marx calls “relative surplus-value”. 

But this is sheer luck and not a permanent reprieve from the contradictions of the capitalist 

system. Marx was convinced that these contradictions will eventually catch up with 

the capitalists by the mechanism called “the falling rate of profit.” In a nutshell, by replacing 

workers with machines, the constant portion of the total capital increases in relation to 

the variable capital. Since the capitalists need both, constant and variable capital, it becomes 

more and more difficult for them to make profits. Marx expected that capitalism, as it 

ages, would become more and more convulsed with economic crises, until the working class 

would lose patience with it and put it to its deserved death. 

Message [1298] referenced by [1229], [1387], [2008fa:1191], [2009fa:1163], and [2010fa:871]. Next Message by 

Hans is [1321]. 

[1418] Prairierose: The continual striving by the capitalist to lower the value of their 

products contradicts the basic tenet of the labor theory of value that they are only interested 

in value and not the use-value. The continual striving by the capitalists to lower the value 

of their product comes at their own expense. The capitalist only receives a benefit in the


marketplace for a short period of time due to the rest of the marketplace eventually catching 

up. The capitalist is no better off and could even be worse off because now he has to 

purchase additional raw materials to sustain a production with the same amount of profits. 

Professor Ehrbar elucidates in Installment II that Marx was convinced these contradictions 

would eventually catch up with the capitalists by the mechanism called the “falling rate of 

profit.” Marx also believed as capitalism continued it would become plagued with economic 

crises and the working class would put capitalism to its deserved death. 

Hans: You are forgetting that they do draw a benefit from higher productivity in roundabout way, by relative 

surplus-value. Otherwise it is a very good answer. 


[1691] Jimmie: graded A The reason this doesn’t contradict the basic tenet of the labor 

theory of value is because of relative surplus-value. In their luck, the capitalists continual 

efforts to cut cost do in fact bring about extra surplus-value through machinery, lower wages, 

extra long works days. However, this eventually will lead to “falling rates of profit”, which 

eventually would make it very difficult to squeeze any more surplus-value out of the workers. 

Final Grading Note by Hans: Always concise, thoughtful, and often entirely accurate, zeroing on the essentials. 



Question 551 Marx says that an increase in productivity will increase surplus-value not 

only through the cheapening of the workers’ means of subsistence, but through other avenues 

as well. Describe some of these other avenues. 

[1228] Mason: Some of the other avenues mentioned by Marx that will increase surplusvalue 

consist in the expectations while he is working with the more modern equipment. 

Marx writes in [437:2/o]: 

“The objective of the development of productivity of labor within the context 

of capitalist production is the shortening of that part of the working day 

in which the worker must work for himself, and the lengthening, thereby, 

of the other part of the day, in which he is free to work for nothing for the 

capitalist.” 

Because of these new inventions the capitalists expect more from their employees. For 

example: to work longer hours, have shorter breaks, take less vacation time. Even though 

these new machines are supposed to increase productivity, they ultimately will run down 

their employess. In the Annotations, Hans implies that these machines come with higher 

expectations and certain working standards from the employees. 

“Sometimes, the capitalists even have the gall to say: since we have invested 

so much in the expensive machinery, now everyone must now show 

up on time.” 

It will not just change how long they will work and cheapen the means of their subsistence 

but it will also hurt them when they are working by putting too much responsibility and too 

much work-load upon them. The capitalists will treat the employees as if they were machines 

themselves. 


Hans: I had to clean up and edit your text. 


Question 552 is 77 in 1996ut, 83 in 1997WI, 363 in 1997sp, 361 in 1997ut, 525 in 2002fa, 

545 in 2003fa, 599 in 2004fa, 625 in 2007SP, 605 in 2007fa, 613 in 2008SP, 617 in 

2008fa, 648 in 2009fa, 711 in 2010fa, 730 in 2011fa, 760 in 2012fa, and 711 in Answer: 

Question 552 Your employer gives you your paycheck. How do you know it is paid for your 

labor and not your labor-power (and why does it matter)? 

[1240] Robgodfell: graded A Exploitation and those who love it. A “pervasive false 

consciousness” [Annotations: 423] is actually what would let me “know,” that the paycheck 

that I have received for x hours for q wage is for my labor. 

The wage however, is in actuality a payment for the necessary-time required for the reproduction 

of my labor-power; and thus, I have actually sold labor-power to the capitalist 

and it is from my labor that he can draw surplus value. 

Thus: Labor > Waged Labor Power and a surplus is then gleaned from the sweat of my 

brow. 

What is the significance of this perversion? 

Exploitation dear Watson, exploitation. This game, unfortunately, has been afoot for 

ages; and this pyrrhic victory is claimed over the contents of my soul and body, as I am 

tirelessly ground down into the value that I posses in my labor-power (the wine) to produce 

surplus (the quality of drunkenness) for the capitalist. . . eventually to replaced by plentiful 

folk always searching for a means to insert themselves in heavenly exploitation. Because I 

am blinded by the relations of production and believe wholeheartedly that in fact I am being 

justly compensated for my laboring. 

I am curious however; assume then that the worker was paid his marginal product of labor: 

Could the capitalist then receive “just” compensation for his investments in the modes and 

means of production? In other words would a surplus still exist if the worker received the 

product of his labor? Perhaps if the marginal product of labor equaled some sum less the 

value of the capital itself and possibly a user cost of capital. . . but then again I may have 

strayed so far afield as to have damaged any hope of a decent return in my future capital 

surplus–my grade. 

Hans: According to neoclassical economics, there is no exploitation. The low wages which we witness are the 

inexorable outcome of technology and consumer preferences. Marx would say such an analysis is afflicted with 

commodity fetishism. 

Message [1240] referenced by [1246]. Next Message by Robgodfell is [1274]. 

[1246] Snowy: Labor is labor-power put into a commodity. The capitalist buys laborpower, 

just as a person buys wine. But a consumer does not pay for wine based on how 

drunk he will get from it. Conversely the capitalist does pay the laborer on account of the 

labor performed. To prove that the laborer’s pay is based on labor I will use the example 

Marx did later in chapter 19. Say for example, the laborer receives 3 shillings for a 12 

hour day. His labor-power value (or the necessary-time required for the reproduction of my 

labor-power) is at 3/6 i.e. 3 shillings for a six hour day. But the capitalist does not pay for 

labor-power, but for labor which he values at 3/12 i.e. 3 shillings for a 12 hour day. Yet,


unbeknownst to the laborer, he works 6 hours for free. Thus, the capitalist disguises the 

exploitation by paying the laborer on account of the labor he has performed, “which is either 

measured by time or output” [Annotations 422]. 

Robgodfell stated in [1240], A “pervasive false consciousness” [Annotations:423] is actually 

what would let me “know,” that the paycheck that I have received for x hours for q 

wage is for my labor. 

I know that I am paid for my labor and not my labor-power because I can not sell my 

labor-power to a capitalist and receive a pay check if I do not show up to work and perform 

labor. Thus, when I receive a pay check I believe that I am receiving pay due to the labor 

I have performed. This false consciousness mentioned by Robgodfell is due to the fact that 

it is a practical procedure to be paid on account of the labor performed. “To the worker it 

seems natural that he is paid for his labor” [Annotations: 423]. “...after all, you are the one 

who has to do the work. And the payment by labor performed gives you the incentive, or 

say better it coerces you, to work hard” [Annotations: 423]. 

Why does this matter? 

Robgodfell stated [1240] that this mattered to him because, “I am tirelessly ground down 

into the value that I posses in my labor-power (the wine) to produce surplus (the quality of 

drunkenness) for the capitalist. . . ” 

(The quality of drunkenness for the consumer due to the purchase of wine is not the produced 

surplus to the capitalist, but the labor that is performed, according to Annotations 

423.) Yet, I agree with the rest of Robgodfell’s statement, that being paid based on labor is 

exploitation of the laborer. Also, it is important to mention another reason why this matters, 

which is, payment based on labor makes exploitation invisible. This invisibility of exploitation 

occurs because all labor appears as paid labor. 

Hans: The necessary-time required for the reproduction of your labor-power is 3 shillings per day. I don’t think 

you should call it “3 for 6,” you should just call it “3.” Whether you work 6 or 7 or 8 hours, your reproduction cost 

is the same, 3 shillings. The number 6 comes into this example only because it takes you 6 hours to produce a value 

of 3 shillings. The capitalist, of course, does not want you to go home after 6 hours. He says: I will pay you 3 

shillings only if you work 12 hours. 


[1260] Ash: graded A– The paycheck you receive is paid for your labor so that you will 

continue to think that if you work harder you will get paid more. It is important to the 

capitalist that the laborer thinks he is getting paid for his labor and not his labor-power; this 

makes exploitation unseen. Labor-power is the surplus value of the laborer; if the laborer 

knew that he was actually getting paid for the surplus, or profit, he produced, he might realize 

he could get paid much more for less labor. 

Hans: The overall thrust of your answer is correct, but MarxSchmarx [1265] made some good suggestions how 

the formulation could be made more accurate. 

Message [1260] referenced by [1263], [1265], [1368], and [1383]. Next Message by Ash is [1262]. 

[1263] Xerho: graded A I know that the paycheck I receive is for my labor and not my 

labor-power because of the fact that I am selling/trading my labor to someone in the market 

in exchange for money. Just as it would be foolish to pay the grocer a price for wine depending 

on how drunk I got, so to does it seem foolish to expect payment equal to the true 

amount of labor I performed. 


“Therefore he thinks the wage contract is a contract in which he sells his labor to the 

capitalist.” [section 19] The laborer thinks that he is being paid for his labor, as set up on a 

previous agreement to be paid according to time spent laboring. The laborer sees the amount 

of payment as representing a level of productivity, but what is not seen is the surplus value the 

capitalist extracts from the laborer’s labor-power. “This pervasive false consciousness has 

important implications” [section 19] “...capitalism could not function if exploitation were 

not hidden” [annotations 19] 

I agree with what Ash said in [1260] about “it being important to the capitalist that the 

laborer think he is getting paid for his labor and not his labor-power,” but I would have to 

add that not only is it important, it is necessary for this to happen in order for capitalism to 

function, and not always does the capitalist realize this, as the annotations points out on page 

423, “also the capitalist is often unaware that the commodity labor-power is his only source 

of surplus-value:” 

This matters because as a laborer, I can better allocate my resources, i.e. labor, by exchanging 

it for the greatest possible amount of a commodity if I understand the workings 

behind the labor exchange on the open capitalist market. 

Hans: About your first paragraph: If labor were the commodity actually traded, then it would not be foolish to 

expect payment equal to the true value created by this labor, but this would be the natural outcome. Your payment 

is so much less only because you are getting the value of your labor-power, not the value of your labor. 

About your last paragraph: If you understand this then you know that working more is not a good strategy to get 

rich. If the working class wants to improve their position they have to force the capitalists to spread the payment of 

their labor-power over fewer hours every day. They cannot do this individually, they have to organize into Unions, 

or take the political action to raise the minimum wage. 

Message [1263] referenced by [1284], [1319], [1326], [2007SP:1048], and [2008SP:523]. Next Message by Xerho 

is [1264]. 

[1265] MarxSchmarx: graded A The purpose of a paycheck... The worker believes 

that the paycheck is paying him for his labor. This is due to the transaction that occurs on 

the surface of the economy. “...one can therefore say that labor is traded as a commodity 

which has a price” [Annotations 422]. The paycheck is a representation of his labor, but is 

really paying him for his labor-power. If the paycheck were to compensate him for his full 

value of labor, there would be no surplus value, and capitalism would cease to exist. The 

paycheck appears as payment for the worker’s labor, because in order to get an hour’s worth 

of payment for his labor-power, the worker has to show up and perform the labor. 

Ash states, in his/her answer to this question [1260], “Labor-power is the surplus value 

of the laborer; if the laborer knew that he was actually getting paid for the surplus, or profit 

he produced, he might realize he could get paid much more for less labor”. I believe that 

this would be better stated, “Labor-power is the source of surplus value for the capitalist. 

If the laborer realized that he was not getting paid for the surplus value that he creates for 

the capitalist, the worker would demand more payment for less work.” However, by giving 

a worker a paycheck, the capitalist is masking this exploitation. The worker sees how many 

hours he worked, and how much he was reimbursed for his labor, and calls it good. What 

the paycheck doesn’t tell the worker is that he is only being paid for his labor-power, and 

not for the value of his labor. 

Message [1265] referenced by [1260], [1383], and [2007SP:879]. Next Message by MarxSchmarx is [1471].


[1272] Dandy: labor vs. labor-power. To understand whether I am being paid for labor 

or labor-power, we must first define the two terms. Labor-power is what the employee brings 

to the table in his capacity to labor and what the employer can net from the actual goods. 

Labor is a fixed value determined by time and output. 

There is a discrepancy between labor and labor-power that involves the price of the transaction, 

if the labor were sold directly it would be equal to only the amount of value created 

during that hour. There is a certain amount of exploitation involved in labor-power which is 

necessary to capitalism. 

Wage must also be brought into this equation because it includes fringe benefits, which 

are paid for out of the “labor-power pool”. Benefits tend to be distributed unevenly due to 

employee situations; therefore it is more of a reflection of the labor-power. Despite these 

exceptions most of wages paid are that of labor. 

In conclusion labor-power has to net more increase than is paid out in labor or the proposition 

would not be profitable. 

Hans: Your definition what it means to be paid for labor-power is wrong. If your payment were based on laborpower 

directly, which is after all the commodity you are selling, then you would get an allowance which covers 

your cost of living. Instead, your pay is based on your labor, i.e., you are getting a fixed amount per hour worked. 

This fixed amount is of course far less than the value you create during this hour. 

Message [1272] referenced by [1309]. Next Message by Dandy is [1328]. 

[1284] Mason: If you earned your paycheck through your labor-power and not your labor 

there is no way that this could function in the capitalist production. The key component for 

the capitalis not to pay his employee for his labor-power and pay for his labor is through 

exploitation. I fully agree with Xerho in submission [1263] when they say that “the laborer 

sees the amount of payment as representing a level of productivity, but what is not seen is the 

surplus-value the capitalist extracts from the laborer’s labor-power.” This surplus value could 

not be obtained without the exploitation of the worker. “If labor were sold, then the hourly 

wage would have to be the amount of value created during the hour. But wages are much too 

low for that.” This would cause the capitalist to lose money, which he can not afford to let 

happen. And also if the worker were aware of what the capitalist was doing, I believe that 

it would be hard to find a worker that would truly work hard. It would make the capitalist 

pay his worker much more. “And the payment by labor performed gives you the incentive, 

or say better it coerces you, to work hard.” I believe that this is what drives the worker to 

work hard, “If a capitalist would not use it he probably would not be able to get much labor 

out of his worker.” The reason why this is so important is because this is the cornerstone for 

a capitalistic society to function. Without this exploitation of the worker by the capitalist, 

capitalist society would crumble. Using wage form and coercion helps mask explotation and 

make the, “worker believe that all his labor is paid.” And Marx stresses this point. These 

things are essential for capitalism. “Capitalism could not function if exploitation were not 

hidden.” 

Hans: This exploitation scam is successful not because “the capitalist cannot afford to lose money” but because 

the capitalist class has the control over all the means of production. 



[1309] Dange: graded C What is my paycheck worth? First of all, I like the definition 

that Dandy gave [1272] of labor power, “Labor-power is what the employee brings to the 

table in his capacity to labor and what the employer can net from the actual goods.” 

When my employer gives me my paycheck, I know I am being paid for labor rather 

than labor-power if I am not being compensated enough to bring my full capacity to work. 

If my paycheck doesn’t cover the costs necessary for me to show up to work everyday 

(transportation, food, rent, clothing) and my pay only covers the time or output I produce 

at the job, I know I am being paid only for my Labor rather than my labor-power. This 

matters because the capitalist is getting more benefits out of my labor; and I am not being 

compensated enough to sustain my labor-power. 

Hans: I think you liked Dandy’s definition because it was wrong and confirmed you in your own misunderstandings 

of Marx. You seem to think that the capitalist should pay the worker more than the value which the worker produces, 

because this value is not enough for the worker to live on. A Marxist would say that such a theory allows the 

exploiter to pose as benefactor. 


[1319] Phatteus: When a worker receives a paycheck, they are paid for their labor and not 

the labour power. Their labor becomes a commodity. By paying a worker for their labor, and 

not their labor power, the worker is coerced into working hard. It also hides the exploitation 

of their labor power, which is what is truly being sold. This goes back to what Hans stated 

about paying for the wine but not paying for getting drunk. The parameters for paying some 

one for getting drunk are not practical and would be more cost intensive. 

Hans: You mis-apply the wine metaphor in a similar way as Xerho did in [1263]. Otherwise what you say is 

correct, but it was said several times over in the submissions that preceded yours. I don’t see anything new in your 

answer. 


[1326] Hans: Sale of wine versus sale of intoxication. The wine metaphor from the 

Annotations was mis-applied in [1263] and [1319], therefore let me try to explain it again: 

The commodity which the laborer sells the capitalist is labor-power, not labor, just as the 

commodity which the wine merchant sells to his customer is wine, not intoxication. 

Nevertheless, the pay received by the worker for his labor-power is based on the labor 

performed. This somewhat indirect mode of payment, Marx calls it a “transformation,” is a 

practical necessity in an exploitative setup, in which the voluntary cooperation of the worker 

cannot be counted upon. Without this transformation, the worker’s labor power would not be 

useful to the capitalist. Although there is no alternative as long as we live under capitalism, 

Marx spends a whole chapter on this detail of the transaction because, as a side effect, this 

transformation also makes exploitation invisible. 

In order to drive home the fact that the transaction between worker and capitalist, which 

is so familiar to us all and seems to natural, involves the transformation of the price of laborpower 

into the price of labor, I invented the wine metaphor in [2003fa:510]. If applied to the 

sale of wine, the same transformation which we witness every day in the case of labor-power 

would mean the following: the money the customer pays the wine merchant for the wine is 

based on how intoxicated the customer gets. In this setting it would be obvious that this is 

an indirect and odd form of payment, and nobody would dream of actually doing it this way.


Anthony Brewer described this same indirectness as follows: “It is as if the price of a 

horse was quoted at so much per leg, and then multiplied by four to find the price per horse.” 

This metaphor was used (without attribution) in [1996sp:436]. 

It is a difficult fact to swallow that we are selling labor-power and not labor – because 

if this is true, our situation is much closer to that of a slave than most of us would care to 

admit. From a Marxist point of view we are subject to the “second bargain” as I called it in 

[1216]. The wage form, which seems to reimburse us, however imperfectly, for our labor, 

is only window dressing. 


[1368] Snickers: graded B If you could get paid and not have to do any form of labor, 

please tell me what job it is. To receive a paycheck you must place hours of labor towards 

a business in order to receive a pay check. Your labor-power is what you present to the job 

initially to get hired, then your labor is needed to get paid. But in [1260] as Ash states that 

if you got paid for your surplus value of your labor you would realize you could get paid 

more for less labor. My question is what about the guy who sets up an internet site using his 

labor initially but now he can sit back and watch the money roll in. He used his labor-power 

and labor to set up the site but now he doesn’t have to invest any more labor to get paid, 

he is pretty much getting paid for his labor power I believe now. Knowing the difference 

between labor-power and labor is important because it’s your labor power that gives you the 

oppurtunity to be able to use labor, to get paid. 

Hans: See [1383]. You’d have to be more specific about what the internet site does if you want to know how a 

Marxist would explain this. 


[1383] Hans: Don’t be fooled by the powerful word “labor-power” Snickers [1368] 

quotes a sentence from Ash [1260] which was inaccurate in its original formulation, but 

MarxSchmarx supplied a corrected version in [1265]. Please don’t reintroduce errors in the 

exam which were corrected in the class discussion. 

Presumably, Snickers didn’t believe that Ash’s formulation was in error because Snicker’s 

own view of the difference between labor and labor-power is a little off. Snicker writes: 

Your labor-power is what you present to the job initially to get hired, then 

your labor is needed to get paid. 

Your labor-power is not only what you present in the job interview, but it is also the 

commodity which you are selling. How the employer puts your labor-power to use is his 

responsibility; he is the one who tells you what to do. You are not selling your labor to the 

employer because you can only sell what you own, and your labor never belongs to you. 

Your labor belongs to the employer because he has bought your labor-power. 

On the one hand, it is very demeaning to have to sell your labor-power and to spend your 

best waking hours in a situation in which you have very little control. On the other hand, this 

demeaning situation is also not very lucrative. Because your reimbursement is not measured 

by the value which you are producing, but by the cost which you have incurred to reproduce 

your labor-power. 


Don’t be fooled by the sound of the words. The word “labor-power” sounds much more 

powerful and important than the word “labor.” The reality is just the opposite. I tried to 

explain this also in [2003fa:400]. It is unfortunate that we have to sell our labor-power 

instead of being able to get an equivalent for the value our labor produces. 

Your pay is based on your labor, this is perhaps a better formulation than to say: you are 

paid for your labor. Every paycheck shows this, because it computes how many hours you 

have worked and pays you accordingly. This does not mean that the commodity you sold to 

the capitalist is your labor. What you sold is your labor-power. 

Message [1383] referenced by [1368], [2007SP:107], and [2008fa:840]. Next Message by Hans is [1386]. 

Question 555 is 224 in 1995ut, 248 in 1996sp, 299 in 1997WI, 372 in 1998WI, 373 in 

1999SP, 461 in 2000fa, 488 in 2001fa, 527 in 2002fa, 547 in 2003fa, 602 in 2004fa, 608 

in 2007fa, 620 in 2008fa, 651 in 2009fa, 734 in 2011fa, and 608 in Answer: 

Question 555 If it looks like a duck and walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it 

is a duck. What the laborer is selling the capitalist is paid as if it was her labor, and what 

the laborer gives the capitalist during the day is her labor. Why does Marx not draw the 

obvious conclusion from this that the laborer is selling her labor, but insist that she is selling 

her labor-power? 

[1310] MK: In obtaining the necessary factors of production, the capitalist looks on the 

labor market as a branch of the general market for commodities. The abilities and energies 

of the worker are viewed and treated as another commodity. The worker, in his accepting a 

position of employment, has sold not his labor but his ability to work– his labor power. 

Labor power is a commodity governed by the same laws as other commodities. Its value 

is determined by the labor time necessary for its production– labor power is the ability of the 

worker to work. Labor power is consumed by the capitalist in the actual labor-process. The 

production of labor power also implies the worker’s self-maintenance and the reproduction 

of his species, to provide new generations of laborers for the capitalist. 

The labor time necessary for the worker’s maintenance is the labor time it takes to produce 

the means of subsistence for herself and her family. The worker sells the capitalist not his 

labor (which is realised in the work process), but his labor power–his ability to work. 

Having purchased this as a commodity, the capitalist is free to use it as he pleases– the 

capitalist purchases labor power because it is the only commodity which can produce new 

values above and beyond its own value. 

Hans: Good summary of Marx’s general argument. But after this summary you should come back to the question 

and explain why Marx does not let a “duck” be a duck. Perhaps along the lines that the surface transactions which 

look like the sale and purchase of labor mediate a much less egalitarian relationship underneath, and that the workers 

need to understand this if they want to overcome the system. 


[1336] Astclair: MK, I think you do an excellent job explaining this confusing concept. I 

would just like to add a few points.


It is up to the capitalist to manipulate the acquired labor-power in order to make profits. 

The capitalist must pay the worker what the worker believes to be a fair wage for her labor, 

and make sure there is enough labor-power left over to cover any remaining overhead 

expenses, and of course turn a profit. 

Marx points out that it is necessary to hide exploitation from the laborer, this may or 

may not be true. I believe that most all laborers know that they are being exploited in some 

fashion. The trick comes in hiding the degree of exploitation. The capitalist may be actually 

be able to compensate the laborer with 3 or 4 times the wage they actually pay; this excess 

value comes from what is left between labor-power and what the worker perceives her labor 

value to be. The trick for the capitalist is to keep the worker’s view of her own labor value 

at a minimum, in order to maintain maximum margins of exploitation. 

Hans: You seem to think that the capitalists have to trick the workers into accepting a too low wage in order to 

make a profit. This is not Marx’s view. The same market forces which prevent anybody else from selling their 

commodities consistently above their value also force the workers to sell their labor-power consistently at a price 

which substantially exceeds its reproduction cost. All the capitalists have to do is therefore: buy labor-power at its 

value and sell the goods produced by this labor-power at their value. The laws of the market see to it that there will 

be a profit in this. 

I also have to say that you are using Marx’s terminology in the wrong way. What you call labor-power is in 

Marx’s terminology the full value created by the worker’s labor, and what you call the wage which the worker is 

tricked into accepting is in Marx’s terminology the value of their labor-power. 




Question 557 Marx says that labor cannot have value because it is the source which gives 

everything its value. How can labor give something which it doesn’t have? 

[1269] Ernesto: labor creates value from which no value originates. In our class 

booklet a quote is provided which is most fitting, 

“Labor is the cause of value in commodities, but cannot in itself have value; 

as the sun is the cause of shadows but cannot itself have a shadow.” 

I don’t know if it could be stated more clearly. I think of it as the difference between 

kinetic energy and potential energy. Kinetic energy is the act of motion and energy. Potential 

energy is the circumstance and ability to permit kinetics. A ball at the top of a hill has a lot of 

potential energy stored but fails to be energy. It becomes energy when it is rolled down the 

hill. Labor and labor-power are similar in nature. Labor is the act of providing the necessary 

energy to create value. Labor power is the ability and potential to perform the act of adding 

value. Labor-power cannot be objectified in and of itself. It becomes objectified in the object 

it produces. Therefore it cannot be bought as a commodity. In essence, value is after the fact. 

It is an externality of some labor performance. It originates only as power and the ability 

until utilized in the productive process. 


[1279] Bboarder: Marx states that the reason labor cannot have value is because, “It is 

essential for the concept of value that the value can be expressed on the market place.” A 

shoe has value because it can be represented in a market place however you can not take 


value and put it into the market place and sell it. Marx states that if labor were to be sold as 

a commodity it would have to exist before being sold, how can labor exist in a market place 

like a commodity. Labor would have to have an independent existence to be sold. 

How can labor give value which it does not it self contain? Marx states “As an activity 

creating value, [labor] can no more have any particular value than gravity can have any particular 

weight, heat any particular temperature, electricity any particular strength of current.” 

If labor contained value then we would exchange labor instead of commodities because labor 

would make us money, and everyone would have a certain amount of value stored up 

at all times. Marx states that this is non sense and that labor contains no value but gives 

commodities its value and therefore that’s why commodities are traded instead of labor. 

Hans: Good summary of the arguments given in the Annotations. 


[1286] Legolas: Marx tells us that labor cannot have value because it is the source which 

gives everthing is value. In its entirety it makes sense because, A can be given to B even 

though B does not contain A, as the sun gives a shadow but doesn’t have a shadow itself. 

There are limitations, in my opinion, as to when this can apply, for instance, the object must 

be intangible, like value. When people speak of the value of labor as a price (money), they 

are referring to how the wage is given depending on hours of labor; however labor does not 

exist once it is sold therefore, the wage labor is constantly changing with new labor power. 

The wage is the first tangible item to be introduced into this equation of ‘labor cannot have 

value because it is the source.’ Once wage is introduced it changes the equation. 

Hans: In my view, the condition for applicability is not whether it’s tangible or not, but whether something else is 

required too in order to produce the effect. To get shade, you not only need sun but also an object shielding you 

from the sun, and in order to get value, you not only need labor but also means of production. 


[1318] Surferboy: Labor is not tangible and is only a means that produces a commodity. 

Commodities have value which is why they are exchangeable on the market. Labor creates 

the commodity and is not exchangeable on the market like a commodity, therefore it has no 

value but is able to give value to what it produces. 

Hans: To me, labor seems tangible enough, intangibility is not the problem. The problem is the modes of existence 

of labor. Apart from potential labor buried in the worker, labor can only exist in its exercise, and this exercise 

requires means of production. I think this is what you mean when you say “it is only a means that produces a 

commodity.” After this first sentence, your argument is good. 


[1488] Claire: Bboarder [1279] quotes Marx by stating, “It is essential for the concept 

of value that the value can be expressed on the market place” (Installment 2, p63) and labor 

is not a commodity because it exists before the exchange and therefore can not have value. 

The product itself has value but the labor does not because it gives the product value. 

Hans quotes one of his students stating, “Labor is the cause of value in commodities, 

but cannot in itself have value; as the sun is the cause of shadows but cannot itself have a 

shadow” (p426). 

Hans: Labor does not exist before the exchange, therefore it can not be taken to the market and sold. The laborer 

goes to the market, not labor itself. 

I really liked your example in the in-class exam. You wrote: “A woman who takes dirt and makes it into a clay 

pot puts value into the dirt and makes it a wanted item. The value is not in the woman but in the clay pot.” 

Next Message by Claire is [1561].


[1623] Avatar: graded A Resub for Exam Question 557. Labor is the source of value, but 

it doesn’t have value. A thing need not possess a certain quality to cause it to be manifested in 

another. There are many examples of this relationship, like the one given in the annotations 

about the sun causing things to cast shadows, but not having a shadow of its own. Another 

is an allergen. An allergen doesn’t possess allergies, but can cause them in something else. 

Labor gives something it does not have (value) via its abstraction: “labor power”. Labor 

power is a commodity such that its consumption is the objectification of value and in its 

consumption value is endowed to other commodities. 


[1647] Ernesto: The class book gives the example of the sun creating shadows and yet 

fails to have its own shadow. I liken it to the difference between kinetic energy and potential 

energy. Kinetic energy is power in motion, potential energy is the circumstance conducive 

to create kinetic energy. A ball at the top of a hill has potential energy. It however is not 

energy. The ball rolling down the hill becomes energy through its motion. Labor then is the 

product of labor-power just as much as shadows are a product of the light. 


[1684] Dange: graded C+ The value of labor is reflected in the value of the commodity. 

Labor produces the product of labor, which then gives value. The capitalist earns a profit 

based on the difference of the product of labor and the price of the labor-power. Such as the 

example given in the annotations (pg. 426), “Labor is the cause of value in commodities, 

but cannot in itself have value; as the sun is the cause of shadows but cannot in itself have a 

shadow.” 

Hans: Your first sentence “the value of labor is reflected in the value of the commodity” is wrong. Labor does not 

transfer its value to the end product but instead creates new value. 

First Message by Dange is [69]. 

[1728] Legolas: Even though labor does not have value, it still can give value. As it says 

in the annotations, “Labor is the cause of value in commodities, but cannot in itself have 

value; as the sun is the cause of shadows but cannot itself have a shadow.” Labor does not 

exist until it is sold, and without labor there would be no commodities nor exchange. Labor 

is the source that gives everything its value. However, as Hans stated, just as there must 

be an obecct between you and the sun to give a shadow, there must also be the means of 

production required to get value from labor. Because labor is the source, it does not have to 

in itself contain that which it gives, value. 


[1817] Will: graded B– In class answer; 

Labor cannot have value because it is the fundamental thing that gives a commodity value. 

Labor in terms of time it took to produce the good creates the value from which a capitalist 

gives value to a commodity. Furthermore, if labor had value we would trade labor. It is like 

gravity; gravity gives weight to everything here on earth although it is not a physical thing 

that we can see or touch; the same of which goes for labor. 

Comments on answer from annotations; 

1. Marx main reasoning for why labor cannot hold value is because, “It is essential for 

the concept of value that the value can be expressed on the market place.” 


2. Marx also says that labor has to have a value before it has been performed in order to 

have value. So if nothing has been created from it how labor can have value. Labor would 

have to have an independent existence in order to be sold 

3. How can labor give value which it does not it self contain? Marx states “As an activity 

creating value, labor can no more have any particular value than gravity can have any particular 

weight, heat any particular temperature, electricity any particular strength of current.” It 

is more or less seen as something that is not there. It is an example of presence. 

Hans: What do you mean by “labor in terms of time it took to produce the good creates the value from which a 

capitalist gives value to a commodity”? 

I expect your commentary to look at your in-class answer and tell me what about it is right and what is wrong. 

If you don’t do this, your grade suffers. 


[1902] Matt: Labor doesn’t give value but rather creates value. If labor had a value then 

we would not trade commodities but instead we would trade labor. Another way to think 

about it is like looking at gravity. Gravity doesn’t weigh anything but because of it things 

have weight. So therefore labor does not have value but it does possess the ability to create 

it. 

Remarks: I think the most important part of the answer I managed to sum it up in the 

first sentence. Labor can give something it doesn’t have because its possesses the abilty 

to create value. Labor is not passing on something that it already possesses, it’s creating 

something through the means of labor power. So therefore the key word is creates because 

this ability allows it to instill something without actually possessing it. As far as the second 

sentence I don’t think it’s as relevant or entirely true. I think in certain cases if labor had 

value then it would be traded instead of being used to create that commodity but I don’t think 

I would completly do away with the trading of commodities. As far as the analogy I think 

it applies since gravity is what creates weight but gravity doesn’t have weight because it is 

what creates it. 

Hans: This is a wonderful answer! You are keeping a clear head in the face of these very abstract things. 

Message [1902] referenced by [2011fa:668]. First Message by Matt is [418]. 


2007fa, 619 in 2008SP, 622 in 2008fa, and 766 in 2012fa: 

Question 558 Why is it an absurd tautology to say that the value of a 12-hour working day 

is determined by the 12 working hours contained in it? 

[1241] TimJim: 12 hour day doesn’t mean 12 hours. It is an absurd tautology to say 

that the value of a 12-hour working day is determined by the 12 working hours contained 

in it for a few reasons. The first reason is listed in the same chapter and states that labor 

cannot have any value. In the annotations it states that, “because that which gives things 

value cannot itself have value.” There is no way to give value to a 12-hour working day if 

labor cannot be considered value. Marx goes on and states that labor cannot be considered a 

commodity and cannot be traded which would give it exchange value. 

Another reason why this assumption is absurd is discussed in Chapter 10. Marx discusses 

the difference between the “necessary labor” and the “surplus labor.” With this assumption 

we know that the worker is being exploited to work longer than necessary to produce the


same commodity and to be paid the same wages. It would be more accurate with this assumption 

to state that value is determined by the “necessary labor” hours contained within 

the commodity. It may only take an worker 6 hours of necessary labor to complete a commodity 

but the worker is forced to work a 12 hour working day which would result in 6 

hours of “surplus labor.” 

Hans: In your first paragraph you argue correctly that the statement: “the value of 12 hours of labor is 12 hours 

of labor” is wrong, because labor does not have value. But this statement is especially puzzling because it almost 

sounds like something that should be by definition true, i.e., a tautology. My [1321] is an attempt to explain this 

puzzle. 

Your definition of necessary and surplus labor in your second paragraph is completely off. These are very basic 

concepts: please read up on them. 

Message [1241] referenced by [2007SP:813]. Next Message by TimJim is [1399]. 

[1282] Prairierose: Absurd tautology. It is an absurd tautology because the worker is 

not being compensated for the entire twelve hours. If the worker was compensated for the 

entire twelve hours the capitalist would not be making a profit. As Professor Ehrbar states in 

the class annotations, “The ‘necessary labor’ is the length of the time needed by the worker 

to produce an equivalent of his or her wage. The ‘surplus labor’ is the additional time during 

which the worker produces value appropriated without equivalent by the capitalist.” Professor 

Ehrbar also explains in the class annotations, the grim social reality behind the logical 

distinction between labor, the source of value, and commodities, which have value since the 

laborer does not have access to the means of production, he is barred from benefiting from 

his labor. Therefore, it is an absurd tautology to say that the value of a twelve hour working 

day is determined by the twelve working hours contained in it due to the grim social reality 

the worker faces. 


[1321] Hans: How can a tautology be wrong? A tautology is something which is by 

definition true, and therefore it is superfluous to say it. The statement “12 hours of labor 

are 12 hours of labor” is a tautology. Saying it amounts to saying nothing, it is a vacuous 

statement. 

But this is not the statement criticized by Marx. He criticizes the statement “the value 

of 12 hours of labor is 12 hours of labor” (my emphasis). In Capital he calls it an absurd 

(abgeschmackt) tautology, and in Value, Price and Profit he calls it “a tautological and, 

moreover, a nonsensical expression.” How can something be a tautology, i.e., by definition 

true, and at the same time be absurd or nonsense, i.e., wrong? 

I think Prairierose got it right in [1282] when she said that the culprit here are the grim 

social realities of capitalism. Perhaps one can think of it in the following way: The transition 

from labor to value should be as easy as pie. It should be almost tautological that someone 

who is willing to work 12 hours should be able to get access to goods containing 12 hours of 

labor. But under capitalism it isn’t, the reason being that the workers are barred from access 

to the means of production. 

This is a difficult question, and I am still groping for an answer. An earlier attempt, which 

you may find interesting, is my [2003fa:522]. 

Message [1321] referenced by [1241], [2007fa:424], and [2012fa:1032]. Next Message by Hans is [1326]. 


Exam Question 560 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, 634 in 2007SP, 

614 in 2007fa, 626 in 2008fa, 720 in 2010fa, 740 in 2011fa, and 769 in 2012fa: 

Exam Question 560 Why can the laborer not use her labor-power to produce commodities 

and sell them, instead of selling her labor-power? 

[1290] MrPink: (graded A) The reason that the laborer cannot use her labor power to both 

produce and sell the commodity is because she does not have the means of production. Marx 

states “If the laborer had access to the means of production then he would sell his product 

and not his labor power”. This point is also made throughout the archives (for example 

[2001fa:342]). 

Hans: Yes. This is the kind of answer I expect in the exam. 

Message [1290] referenced by [1347] and [1381]. Next Message by MrPink is [1296]. 

[1308] MK: The laborer cannot use his labor power on his own, because he does not have 

the necessary capital to buy ‘means of production’ (material inputs, buildings, equipment, 

land etc) needed for production. 

Hans: This formulation implies that things would be ok if only the workers had enough money. But capitalism 

would be impossible if the workers had enough money to buy their own means of production! You are falling 

behind your own [1126], please re-read the comment I added to that earlier submission. 


[1347] Thelonius: The laborer in question has the labor-power to produce commodities, 

but does not possess the means of production. The laborer is then dependant upon the capitalist 

who does own the means of production, then becoming a wage earner who exchanges 

their labor-power as a commodity. I don’t believe there is any more to the answer. The 

laborer who does not produce their own commodities, simply does not possess the means of 

production. 

Hans: I already said in response to [1290] that this is the correct answer. The extra credit assignment is for those 

cases where the correct answer may be in doubt. 


[1351] Jerm: The laborer can only sell her labor-power because she does not have access 

to the means of production in order to produce and sell. In the annotations it says: “If the 

laborer had access to the means of production (which is what would allow him to give his 

labor an ‘independent existence’), then he would sell his product and not his labor power.” 

It is for this reason she cannot use her labor-power to both produce and sell the commodity. 


[1365] Daleman: (graded A) The laborer cannot use her labor power to produce and sell 

commodities because the laborer does not have the means to produce commodities. If every 

worker had the means to produce commodities then they would do so and sell them rather 

than their labor. This would make it quite difficult for a capitalist to purchase labor that 

would ultimately increase his wealth. 

Hans: This answer would get full points on the exam. But this grade is not counted for the extra-credit assignment, 

as announced in [1353]. 


[1370] McDugall: (graded A) There are two reasons why labor does not use their laborpower 

to produce and sell commodities. The primary reason labor is unable to produce 

commodities is due to their lack of means of production. They possess the labor ability to


help in the production process but they lack the tools for production. These tools are primary 

machinery and resources, which are not within the reach of the laborer because of their lack 

of finances. The second reason is less important but still a possibility, the labor simply does 

not wish to produce commodities using their available resources. They would rather just sell 

their labor-power to the capitalist. 


[1377] Legolas: A laborer cannot use her labor power to sell commodities because the 

labor does not have an independent existence. If it owned the means of production, which it 

doesn’t, then it would be able to sell his product as a commodity. Also, Labor can only be 

sold as a commodity if it existed before the sale. Labor does not exist until it is sold. 

Message [1377] referenced by [1381]. Next Message by Legolas is [1413]. 

[1381] Hans: Read the question! Legolas’s answer [1377] differs from the earlier answers 

[1290], [1308], [1347], [1351], [1365], and [1370], because Legolas answered a different 

question. Legolas explained why the laborer cannot sell his or her labor. This is not 

what was asked. Please read the questions carefully. 




742 in 2011fa: 

Question 562 Do Marx’s arguments that labor cannot have value also imply that services 

(i.e., a haircut) cannot have value? 

[1259] Pisciphiliac: graded A Can a service have value? No, Marx is not implying that 

services cannot have value. A service is not the same as labor and the service should be 

treated just like any other commodity. Keeping with the haircut example, we are not paying 

the stylist for their labor; we are paying them for a haircut. The haircut is the commodity 

and if it is bad, we will not pay for it. A capitalist owns the factors of production (i.e. - the 

building, the heating, etc.) and the stylist is just the laborer. When we pay for the haircut, 

we are paying the capitalist. The price of the haircut does not solely equal the labor-value 

from the stylist. A point of confusion is often the fact that commodity (the haircut) is being 

produced while simultaneously consumed. 

A service can have value. 

Message [1259] referenced by [1277]. Next Message by Pisciphiliac is [1384]. 

[1277] Bubba: graded A Services and value. Pisciphiliac [1259] is right in distinguishing 

the terms “service” and “labor.” Whereas labor has the potential to create value, a service is a 

commodity and can be sold as such, because it has value. In slightly clearer words, the labor 

of cutting my hair produced a service (neatly trimmed hair) that had value. [2001fa:305] expands 

on this, describing the head that got its hair cut as a human receptacle of value, similar 

to how the cotton in Chapter 7 was a receptacle for value as it turned into the commodity 

yarn. 

Pisciphiliac describes how the haircut industry works in a way that is more realistic than 

Hans’s [2001fa:326]. Hans asserted, “If you buy a service the service provider does have 

the means of production. He or she is fully equipped to provide this service.” Hans argued 


that from this, we pay that service provider for labor, not for labor-power. This would only 

be true in the case of somebody who set up a salon chair on a street corner waiting for 

customers to walk by or of door-to-door stylists. In real life, Pisciphiliac is right in stating 

that the stylist works for the capitalist (owner of Fantastic Sams), who owns the means 

of production (besides the building that Pisciphiliac mentions, there is also the comb, the 

mirror, the salon chair, the sink, the razor kit, none of which the stylist takes home at the 

end of the day). Therefore, when I get my hair cut at Fantastic Sams, I pay the capitalist 

owners the full value produced by the labor, from which they deduct their surplus value and 

pay out to the nice stylist an hourly wage, which pays for the stylist’s labor-power. Hence, 

more reason to tip the stylist. 


[1306] Mullin: “If equal labor is exchanged against equal labor, then there can be no profits, 

and therefore the condition under which labor can be sold disappears.” Upon receiving, 

for example, a haircut at your local barber it would be inexplicable and scoffed at if in return 

you offered an act of labor equal in value as to that of your recent haircut. This presents a 

situation as described above where there is no profit made by the transaction thus becoming 

inconsistent with capitalism. 

It thus becomes apparent that the common practice of exchanging money for a service 

represents a socially imposed value rather than theoretically inherited. As such the arguments 

presented do not state that a service cannot have value but that the value placed upon 

these services supercede the labor theory of value and also supercede the capitalist production. 

Concluded by Marx is that “since exchange is an expression of equality, any underlying 

real mechanism governing the outcome of exchanges must consist in it that the things to be 

exchanged have in some respect an equal character.” This is further illustrated by Wakefield 

in the footnote of the text suggesting that when treating labor as a commodity it must be 

exchanged for the quantity of capital that was produced using the same amount of labor as 

the item being exchanged. 

In as much as every commodity is not labeled with the quantity of time used in production 

(labor) for said commodity it is unreasonable to believe that the market would react as 

indicated. Every commodity’s value would have to be determined upon production to allow 

for service to hold real value rather than an socially imposed and accepted value. The current 

marketplace thus reflects the beliefs of Marx that services cannot have value under the 

current labor theory and capitalist views. 

Hans: Lots of misunderstandings. Equal exchange does not require barter in kind, as you seem to think in your 

first paragraph. The adjustment which you consider unreasonable to expect in your last paragraph is done by the 

producers every day, who vote with their feet if the socially accepted value reimburses them less than the production 

of alternative goods. 

You seem to be saying between the lines that we have to allow the capitalists to make their profits off us because 

they give us social cohesion. Am I reading you right? 

A Marxist would see this from the other side: capitalists isolate the workers and usurp for their own benefit the 

social relations of those under their control. 

The remedy for this is to organize. The capitalists are already organized, therfore the working class must 

organize too. 

Next Message by Mullin is [1412].


[1328] Dandy: In reponse to Mullin. I agree with Mullin’s comments, his first paragraph 

is a little unclear but his second paragraph is right on. He states that service is a socially 

imposed value. He says that the value placed on services supersede the labor theory on 

value and also capitalist production. 

Hans stated that Marx’s argument that labor cannot have value therefore services cannot 

have value is a difficult argument. The capitalist can buy labor power because the worker 

does not have the means of production. An example of this is that a stylist would have 

to work without any resources provided by the capitalist. The service of a worker is a 

commodity that has a special use of producing other commodities that have more exchange 

value then it has itself. The exchange value of a machine is simply a part of the labor of 

making and working the machine. If an employer buys worker services at their value then 

there will be an excess of surplus value additional to the value of the wage that the employer 

appropriates. 

Hans: The extra credit submissions should be summaries of the arguments of all the answers, and can therefore 

not just be a response to one of the answers. You must prove that you are able to see the big picture and recognize 

which arguments were right and wrong. You must trim down the answer to its essentials. This submissioin here 

does not do any of this. If anything, you are seduced by all the wrong arguments anyone put forward, and you do 

not give a coherent answer to the question itself. 


[1542] BBQ: Do Marx’s arguments that the labor cannot have value also imply that the 

services cannot have value? 

Marx is making the argument that services can in fact have value. A service, for instance a 

haircut is not the same as labor. The value of labor streams from the definition of labor power 

which reflects the value of a commodity which is then produced with labor power. A haircut 

is a commodity which the consumer purchases and we pay for the haircut not necessarily 

the labor power that went into cutting one’s hair. The stylist is merely the laborer and the 

haircut is the result of the commodity purchased. Thus the service itself has value. 

Hans: The value of labor streams from the definition of labor power which reflects the value of a commodity which 

is then produced with labor power? 


[1601] Pete: graded A A service has value. The stylist is providing a service. The capitalist 

who owns the building gets the money from rent paid by the haircut given by the stylist. 

This is how something (the haircut) can be produced and consumed at the same time. The 

cost of the haircut may or may not pay for the labor involved. It may take several haircuts to 

pay the rent. 


[1653] MarxSchmarx: graded A Services do have value. When purchasing a service, one 

does not pay directly for the labor that went into producing the service, the service itself is 

what is paid for. When getting a haircut, you pay for the end product, a newly cut head of 

hair. The consumer pays for the use-value associated with the service provided. The end 

product is the commodity, and the labor-power required to perform the service is just like 

the labor-power that goes into making any other commodity. 

The money that is paid for the service, just like any other commodity, goes to the capitalist. 

If the capitalist has laborers (i.e. stylists) working for him, he then would pay the 


laborer for their labor-power. The capitalist would then be able to realize the surplus-value 

associated with owning the factors of production. 


[1695] McDugall: graded A No. A service is not the same as labor. We pay a barber not 

for their labor, rather for a haircut. A haircut is a commodity that we can buy or choose not 

to buy. When we buy a haircut we pay the owner (capitalist) not the barber. The rate we 

pay for the haircut does not equal the barber’s labor. We pay the owner who pays their bills 

and labor and pockets the profit. It is a commodity; we exchange money for the commodity, 

which is socially imposed. 


[1809] Cdew: Marx’s arguments that labor cannot have value do not imply that services 

such as a haircut cannot have value as well. The difference between these two statements is 

that the actual labor-power that went into the service provided as well as the value placed 

on that service by both the provider and receiver. The labor time gives way to the idea that 

there is an opportunity cost associated with the service which in turn must be given value. 

The labor-power actually invokes an individual into the providing of the service which costs 

money and provides value for the service 

Hans: The labor theory of value is not an opportunity cost theory. Haircuts don’t have value because the barber 

could have played volley ball on the beach instead. Haircuts have value because they take up a portion of society’s 

pool of available labor-power. At least this is how Marx views the issue. 

Final Grading Note by Hans: Whatever you submitted was good but there was insufficient quantity and class 

participation. Sorry about that. 

First Message by Cdew is [132]. 

[1838] BonzoIsGod: graded A The instance of a haircut does have value from the perspective 

that the haircut itself is the “commodity.” This money is going to the capitalist, who 

owns the establishment, whereas the stylist is the laborer. You are not paying the stylist for 

their labor performed, but for the end product. If you were dissatisfied with your haircut, 

you could refuse payment, thus making this example, and services in general, commodities. 


[1861] Parmenio: graded A My original response: No, Marx’s arguments do not imply 

that services cannot have value. With the haircut as an example the service functions as a 

commodity (although it is consumed while being produced, which is an odd thing). The 

person buys the haircut if they have need of it, otherwise they wouldn’t. 

However even though it is a service the capitalist still is able to take their cut. If I go into 

a hair cutting place the person cutting my hair is still the laborer and being exploited. The 

chair I sit in, the scissors, the building, etc., all have to be paid for, which the capitalist does. 

The barber doesn’t have the money for all the tools necessary any more than the simple 

factory worker. In fact today we see a lot of national hair styling places that operate like 

factories. 

My resubmission: I don’t see much that I would need to change with this statement. The 

fact that it is a service instead of a product only reflects how it is produced but not what was 

used to produce it, abstract human labor. It is also produced solely for exchange because it 

would be tough to produce haircuts only for oneself. 

Next Message by Parmenio is [1863].


Question 563 is 217 in 1995WI, 253 in 1996sp, 304 in 1997WI, 377 in 1998WI, 378 in 

1999SP, 495 in 2001fa, 534 in 2002fa, 555 in 2003fa, 611 in 2004fa, 638 in 2007SP, 618 

in 2007fa, and 744 in 2011fa: 

Question 563 Why can the inequality in the exchange between worker and capitalist not be 

explained by the fact that the worker represents living labor, and the capitalist objectified 

labor? 

[1305] Picard: graded A inequality in exchange. The inequality in the exchange between 

worker and capitalist cannot be explained by the fact that the worker represents living, and 

the capitalist objectified labor because Marx says the difference between living and objectified 

labor is one of form, not quantity. Hans compares living and objectified labor to water. 

Water can take form as a solid or a liquid but the amount of water contained in an ice cube 

is the same amount of water once it melts and becomes a liquid. 

In other words, living and objectified labor are the same thing, they are equal, the same 

amount of labor went into its creation, they are just not in the same form. 

Message [1305] referenced by [1314], [1324], and [1400]. Next Message by Picard is [1482]. 

[1314] BonzoIsGod: graded A Living Labor vs. Objectified Labor. The inequality 

cannot be explained by living labor and objectified labor because there is no change in the 

amount, or quantity, of labor. “The difference between living labor and objectified labor is 

merely a difference in form” (Ehrbar, 431). 

Secondly, objectified labor is not used in the magnitude of value formulation. The magnitude 

of value is only determined with living labor. “It is therefore the amount of living 

labor required to produce it, not the amount of labor already objectified in the commodity, 

which determines the magnitude of its value” (Ehrbar, 432). 

Hans: Your second paragraph brings an additional thought which was in Marx but not in [1305]. 


[1324] Thugtorious: graded A Past vs. Present Labor. I have read [1305] and [1314] and 

feel that something is still missing. Both responses showed that objectified labor and present 

labor are a qualitative difference, not quantitative. However, they really did not answer 

“why” this is the case. The capitalist does not provide or add any new value to production 

vis-a-vis the capital owned because each piece of machinery and technology is the product of 

labor expenditure in a past time period. This keyboard, monitor, and computer of which my 

boss bought is only the product of labor from the past. That is why the capitalist’s addition 

to production is like an ice cube: it is the solid form of water (labor) from the past, but is of 

the same substance though in a different form. 

Hans: Interesting additional thought. The original answer was already very good, but the two follow-up answers 

offered interesting additional arguments. 


[1400] Robgodfell: graded A Objectified vs. Living Labor; A Qualitative difference. 

The inequality in exchange between worker and capitalist cannot be explained by “living” 

vs. “objectified” labor because the two terms deal with qualitatively different aspects of 

labor not a quantitative one. 

The two are differences of form, not quantity. 


Just as M-C-M are all manifestations of the same quantity of abstract human labor but, in 

qualitatively different forms. 

The metaphor that Hans has preferred to use is that of ice v. liquid form of water [1305]. 

While they may appear different in form (and one might deduce improperly that the quantity 

of water present must be different) the amount of water in x amount of ice will be the same 

quantity of water in its liquid form once the ice has melted (bar miniscule evaporation). 

This, too, does not represent an inequality. 

Objectified labor insomuch as it represents a fixed capital form in the guise of machines, it 

never-the-less is still a quantity of previous labor embodied in the production of said capital 

form. A certain quantity of labor went into making the machine that is now a part of fixed 

capital outlay for production. If the same quantity of labor were then to be used as current 

living labor as a worker we cannot say that the quantity is affected by the form change, only 

the quality. 


[1489] Picard: graded A The inequality in exchange between worker and capitalist cannot 

be explained that way because living labor and and objectified labor are the same thing, just 

in different forms but not different quantities. The example from the annotations explains 

this clearly – water is still water whether it is in solid form or liquid form. When an ice cube 

melts it has the same volume of water in its new liquid form as it did in a solid form. So 

whether labor is in living or objectified form, it is still the same labor and is equal. 


[1740] Sonja: graded A The inequality between capitalist and worker cannot be explained 

by the difference in objectified versus living labor because they are two different forms 

of the same amount of labor. The difference in form cannot explain inequality since both 

objectified and living labor contain an equal quantity of labor that is always there no matter 

the form. 


[1812] Tink: graded A Living labor and objectified labor are two forms of the same thing, 

just like ice is simply the solid form of water. Thus the inequaltiy cannot be explained 

by this representation, because this representation does not identify nor distinguish a true 

“difference” that would justify the inequality in the exchange between worker and capitalist. 


Question 565 is 254 in 1996sp: 

Question 565 Don’t all the contradictions in the concept of “value of labor” described here 

come from the fallacious attempt to derive the value of something from its use-value? 

[1345] Aaron: Yes and no, the main idea that I want to present in this question is that 

labor in Marx’s theory is obviously something special that can not be treated entirely like 

other commodities. Therefore the concept of “value of labor” and the contradictions can not 

be derived from the use-value. Other factors have to come into the equation. What those 

factors are and the degree to which they affect the result are still being heavily debated as 

seen in this class and in other venues all over the world. Because the laborer can produce 

a commodity in 50 hours and that commodity receives a value then the efficiency increases


and only 10 hours are needed the value is lowered accordingly. One place to start looking 

for the answer is with the unfair proportions that the capitalist receives versus the laborer. 

Hans: Labor indeed has a special role in Marx’s theory and, if this theory is right, also in capitalism. We the 

working class are far from “measly” as Ernesto said in [1220]. But this does not mean that the powers slumbering 

in the working-class cannot be understood. 


[1356] Hans: The incendiary contradiction between use-value and exchange-value. 

Early on in our reading of Capital we learned to distinguish the use-value of a commodity 

from its exchange-value. These are two different things. 

If you take for instance the commodity labor-power, you might say: its use-value is, using 

Marx’s examples, 12 cents per hour, while its exchange-value is 6 cents per hour. Because an 

hour of labor creates a value of 12 cents, but the wage, which allows the worker to reproduce 

himself, is only 6 cents. This is no longer just a difference, this is a full-blown contradiction. 

The same thing, considered from its use-value side is 12 cents, and from its value-side 6 

cents. By hiring the worker and putting him or her to work, the capitalist takes advantage of 

exactly this contradiction. 


Exam Question 573 is 221 in 1995WI, 258 in 1996sp, 257 in 1996ut, 373 in 1997ut, 544 

in 2002fa, 621 in 2004fa, 630 in 2007fa, 642 in 2008fa, 673 in 2009fa, 758 in 2011fa, 

and 787 in 2012fa: 

Exam Question 573 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. 

[1302] Tomek: Marx in Capital contrasts labor with labor power, concluding that the 

worker is in fact paid for labor, not labor power. He argues with the classical economy 

that insists on the formation of price through equilibrium of demand and supply. Instead, 

Marx says, at the moment of equilibrium the price of labor is “its natural price, determined 

independently of the relation of demand and supply”. 

Marx focuses mostly on “value of labor” and “labor power”. The worker, he argues, does 

not sell labor, but labor power. He always turns out to be paid less than the value of the 

produced product. The employer will thus exploit the worker, making “labor-power work 

longer than is necessary for the reproduction of its own value”. Marx gives the following 

example: a worker can toil for 12 hours in order to receive 3S, while the actual time needed 

to produce the same value is 6 hours. 

The capitalist is not going to pay the worker the monetary expression of the value of the 

produced product since this will take the basis out of capitalist production. If the worker 

receives the sum equivalent to the value of the produced commodity, the capitalist cannot 

increase the capital. That is why wage labor will always be paid less than the value of the 

product manufactured. On the surface it always looks like the worker sells his labor to the 

capitalist, but in fact the worker’s labor power is used by the employer. 

Hans: Good summary of the argument in chapter 19, but you did not elaborate on that part of it which explains 

how the value of labor is derived from the value of labor-power. 



[1303] Miron: response to Tomek. This is a response to Tomek’s answer to question 573. 

The essay correctly identifies the terms present in Marx’s Capital, such as price of labor, 

labor power and value of labor. Although this interplay of terms is somewhat confusing, it is 

possible to sort them out. Thus, Marx discards ‘price of labor’ as a term related to classical 

theories and focuses on the two main ones: “value of labor” and “labor power”. 

Marx indeed reveals the exploitative value of labor pay in his book. In addition, he points 

out that capitalism is supported by the hidden nature of this exploitation. To have the worker 

believe that he sells his labor and this is exactly what he is paid for. It seems fair, on the 

other hand, that the worker cannot use all the money that can be obtained from the sale of the 

product. This is true since the capitalist also needs to make some investments in buildings, 

equipment, and so on. If the capitalist abuses his or her power, appropriating a greater share 

of the pie, this is another story. 

In addition to the description of the “value of labor” as distinct from the value of produced 

product, Marx also gives other arguments as to why value of labor is a meaningless 

expression. Thus, he argues that “labour must at all events exist before it is sold”, and it 

cannot be objectified otherwise as in the commodities produced. Similarly, value of labor 

cannot be expressed in hours since these hours cannot be equated to the product created. 

Hans: In Marx’s theory, the value of the end product consists of two parts: on the one hand, the value of the 

materials used up and the depreciation of the buildings and machinery is transferred to the end product, and on the 

other hand the direct labor adds new value to the product. This value added is, according to Marx, much more than 

the wage costs, and this is the fund from which profits, interest, ground rent, and taxes are paid. 


[1349] Guerito: graded B+ Deriving value of labor from the value of labor-power is found 

by dividing the daily value of labor-power by the daily number of hours worked. Value of 

labor can be seen reflected in the value of the commodity that was produced with laborpower. 

A Capitalist profits off of the difference in what he pays for the product of labor and 

what he gains from the value of labor. 

Message [1349] referenced by [1355] and [2012fa:1099]. Next Message by Guerito is [1545]. 

[1355] Hans: Value of labor. The first sentence in Guerito’s [1349] is correct, and this is 

indeed the answer to the question which the earlier submissions had not given: 

Deriving value of labor from the value of labor-power is found by dividing 

the daily value of labor-power by the daily number of hours worked. 

Guerito’s next two sentences however are a little confused. They should read (I am giving 

here only the corrected version, so that you know what an acceptable answer to this question 

would look like): 

The value created by the labor can be seen reflected in the value of the 

commodity that was produced with labor-power. A capitalist profits off of 

the difference in what he pays for the labor-power and what he gains from 

the value created by this labor-power. 

I have the impression that some class participants have the right connections in their 

heads, but they don’t use the right words to describe them. Please be careful with the words


you use; it makes a big difference whether you say labor or labor-power, or whether you say 

value of labor-power or value created by the labor-power. 


Question 575 is 222 in 1995WI, 260 in 1996sp, 387 in 1999SP, 567 in 2003fa, and 623 in 

2004fa: 

Question 575 Why is the transformation of the value (resp. price) of labor-power into the 

value (resp. price) of labor the basis of “all mystifications of the capitalistic mode of production”? 

[1329] ADHH: (graded A–) The transformation of the value of labor-power into the value 

of labor is the basis of all mystification because that transformation hides the real exploitative 

relationship between the workers and the capitalists. To the worker, it appears that all of his 

labor is paid when in actuality this is not the case. The wages paid to the workers are based 

on the living expenses of that worker, not on how much he can and does produce during 

the working day. He only gets paid enough to keep him dependent on that job and on the 

capitalist who supplies that job. So while it appears to the worker that he is getting a fair 

hourly wage, he is not getting compensated for all of his labor-power. This appearance 

allows for the “mystification of the capitalist mode of production” to continue. 

Hans: Although this was originally submitted with question number 573, it is obviously meant as an answer to 

575. Nobody else answered question 575, therefore it will not be on the exam. Your answer is basically correct, 

but it does not meet the requirements of the extra credit assignment and therefore does not get a grade. 

Only one detail. You write the worker is not getting compensated for all of his labor-power. What you mean 

is that he is not getting compensated for all the labor he performs, i.e., his wage is far below the value his labor 

produces. He only gets enough to reproduce his labor-power. 



Question 579 In section 1.3 of chapter One, the defects of the forms of value always led to 

better forms. The wage form is certainly defective. Why has it not been replaced by a better 

form? 

[1311] Adamwest: I’ll sell you 4 hours for 4 dollars. Although the wage form may be 

defective, in the eyes of the capitalist it is to his advantage to continue using the wage form. 

The wage form hides the amount of profit that the capitalist receives for each hour worked. 

Though the worker may be aware of it, they still agree to create more value than the wages 

they receive. This wage form ensures the capitalist will receive a given amount of labor for 

a price. This agreement between the capitalist and the worker very closely resembles any 

ordinary exchange on the market. The worker has a commodity; in this case it is labor, for 

this labor the capitalist agrees to pay him a set amount for it completing the transaction. 

Hans: Good reasons. 


[1315] Parmenio: graded B+ The reason the wage form hasn’t been replaced is because 

the capitalists “hide” it from the worker. Or that it continues to exist and the only way it 

can is by “mystifying” not by clarifying, if the worker knew he was being exploited then the 

wage form would be replaced, as the defects in the forms of value led to better forms so to 


would the wage form lead to a better form. The wage form hasn’t been replaced because the 

workers don’t see the defect, it is hidden from them by the capitalists. 

Or as Hans says in his annotations “[c]apitalism, in which personal freedom coexists with 

exploitation, can only exist if exploitation is hidden”. 

Hans: The mystification of the wage form does not come from the capitalists consciously hiding anything. The 

capitalists must use the wage form not in order to hide somthing, but in order to be able to get labor out of the 

workers they hire. 



Question 580 Before spending two long paragraphs on the explanation why the value of 

labor-power persists in its mystified wage-form instead of reverting to a form more appropriate 

to the inner nature of labor-power, Marx says that “nothing is easier to understand” 

than the answer to this question. Doesn’t Marx discredit his own explanations by saying 

that the issue at hand is really trivial? 

[1312] JJ: graded A– Back to the core of things. Marx does not discredit his own explanation, 

because the wage problem is not trivial to those with a core or production perspective. 

The annotations states that Marx was the first to determine that labor power and not the value 

of labor is the content behind wages (annotations page 442). One could make the argument 

however that the capitalists have tried to divert the attention from labor power to value of 

labor. Classical economists “naively” tried to determine these values using supply and demand, 

however these forces do not determine wages or “the price of labor” (annotations page 

436). The wage is determined in the core, not on the surface of the economy. Capitalists talk 

so much about the market, no wonder most laborers do not think about their core relations 

with producers, this is the diversion mentioned earlier. At this point of Das Kapital, Marx 

had already established his point that the wage is determined in the core, not the market. 

Therefore, with a core perspective there is “nothing easier to understand” in regard to the 

wage relation in terms of labor power. Marx’s point I believe was to draw the attention back 

to the core where the real “incongruties” exist. 

Hans: You are right, the core relations themselves are simpler than the confusing and complicated surface phenomena 

through which these core relations are mediated. However I don’t think that the capitalists are consciously 

trying to divert attention from the surface to the core. Some may be conscious of what is going on, but for the 

great mass of them this diversion is the spontaneous outcome of their practical activity as capitalists. They are the 

beneficiaries of the system and therefore do not want it to change. The surface relations treat them well, therefore 

they see no reason to dig deeper. This is why they promote “vulgar economics” which sticks to the surface and 

legitimizes their practices. 

You wrote an interesting essay about the relation between surface and core. I personally don’t think this is what 

Marx alluded to when he wrote “nothing is easier to understand,” but it is a legitimate try and I graded it as such. 

My own answer to this question is given in [1341]. 


[1313] Cdew: No, Marx does not discredit his own explanations by saying that the issue 

is trivial. What can be considered is the idea that a person looking on to the situation would 

have a much easier time understanding where the problems lie, but those persons within the 

situation do not necessarily understand the threat or have a way out. Exploitation is so easily 

hidden but actually changing the situation is not so easy to do. Those within the exploitation 

may realize what is involved but actually addressing and dealing with the situation at hand


is another story. Exploitation of the worker is capitalism in its truest form. This is what 

capitalism is built on, and in order to change the exploitation of these laborers, there would 

need to be a complete change in the way of capitalistic society. Change does not come easily 

to anyone, especially those who have been exploited and weighed down by society most of 

their lives. 

Hans: You are on the right track by connecting this question with exploitation, but I do not agree with your thesis 

that it is easy to hide exploitation. It is necessary to hide exploitation, and in capitalism, exploitation is successfully 

hidden, but this does not mean that it was easy to hide it. This is the key to the answer of the question, see my 

[1341]. 


[1341] Hans: How to fish for causes and make sure that they really exist. Again 

and again in his quest to understand capitalist social relations, Marx finds himself in the 

following situation: he has identified certain surface relations and he is asking: which hidden 

underlying relations in the core of the economy are causing these surface effects? This 

“fishing for underlying causes” presents some interesting epistemological issues: on the 

one hand he has to solve the theoretical problem of finding a mechanism that could have 

generated the surface relations in question, and when he has found such an explanation, he 

still has to double-check whether this postulated core relation is indeed in existence. 

Right now we are at the following place in Marx’s treatment of the wage form. Marx 

showed that the wage form is a “false” form, it is misleading, it hides exploitation, and 

exactly because of this it has “decisive importance” for the functioning of capitalism. But 

after this Marx has to show why, despite this falseness, the wage form persists. On the one 

hand, nothing is easier to understand than this, because we know that capitalism persists, and 

capitalism would not be possible without the veil of the wage form. But such a sweeping 

argument cannot stand on its own; it does not relieve Marx of the scientific duty to find all 

the different particular mechanisms which allow the wage form to persist as a social form 

guiding the practical actions of the economic agents in capitalism. 


Question 584 is 388 in 1998WI, 392 in 1999SP, and 513 in 2001fa: 

Question 584 Productivity bargaining, i.e., union contracts which tie wage increases to 

increases in productivity, did not exist at Marx’s time. Should it be included as an additional 

piece of evicence falsely suggesting that wages are paid for labor? 

[1300] MrPink: graded A Productivity bargaining is false evidence that wages are paid 

for labor. If wages are increased, due to bargaining for an increase in productivity, it is due 

to an increase in labor power and not labor. 

The union can negotiate some increase in wages when productivity rises, but I do not 

think that Marx would have accept this as fair compensation. This is related to the point 

Jimmy makes in [2001fa:328]. Unions play a role within the capitalistic system and thus 

have limitations in relationship to what they can do for workers. 

Hans: I do not know what you mean by “increase in labor-power.” I consider productivity bargaining to be a 

concession by the capitalists: instead of taking all the relative surplus-value for themselves they share part of it with 

the workers. As with other concessions, the capitalists do not want the workers to know that it is a concession or 

why this concession is given. They want the workers to think that the capitalist system does these things for the 

workers voluntarily. 


Otherwise I fully agree with what you say. Even if the unions manage to achieve high wages, Marx would still 

say this is not good enough because the wage labor system itself is not abolished. 


Question 585 is 225 in 1995WI, 264 in 1996sp, 316 in 1997WI, 389 in 1998WI, 393 in 

1999SP, 514 in 2001fa, 554 in 2002fa, 577 in 2003fa, 633 in 2004fa, 666 in 2007SP, 656 

in 2008fa, and 773 in 2011fa: 

Question 585 Is the transformation of the value of labor-power into the value of labor real, 

or does it take place only in the minds of those who sell and buy labor-power? 

[1316] Jingle: graded A– The transformation of the value of labor-power into the value 

of labor is real. During the production process the capitalist enjoys the use-value of the 

labor-power. It is the use-value of the labor-power that creates value. 

The capitalist will pay the value of the laborer’s labor-power labor instead of the value 

produced by the laborer, or in other words the capitalist does not pay for the use-value. The 

laborer sells their labor-power to the capitalist for wages. The laborer must then perform the 

productive labor, or they will not be paid the right amount of wage. Thus, the level of the 

wages is based on the laborer’s reproduction cost, but the laborer gets paid by how he/she 

has performed. The capitalist is only interested in the output that the worker performs. The 

capitalist only has to pay for the reproduction cost of the laborer which is less than the value 

the laborer performs, so the capitalist is coming out on top. 

Hans: This is the right argument: the transformation is real, it is the mechanism by which the worker is coerced to 

perform for the capitalist. 

Your original submission did not use the right terminology. The first sentence in your second paragraph was 

originally: “the capitalist will pay for the labor instead of the value of the labor.” I changed it into what I think you 

really meant. 



2010fa: 

Question 587 Marx writes: “the labor process, in the capitalist mode of production, appears 

only as a means for the process of valorization.” Why does he use the word “appears” 

here, and why did he put an “only” into this sentence? Shouldn’t he have said “the labor 

process is means for the process of valorization”? 

[1417] Hans: Current Assignments. Right now, questions 587-609 are assigned. Also, 

term paper discussions to term papers 815 (use question number 815) and 539 (use question 

number 5539) are accepted. In addition, my answers discussing what happens if a worker 

works too fast are accepted under question number 813. You can get term paper discussion 

credit for this even if you yourself have written a term paper about chapter 13. 


Question 590 is 561 in 2002fa, 584 in 2003fa, 700 in 2007SP, 679 in 2007fa, and 692 in 

2008fa: 

Question 590 Marx claims that the mere repetition, or continuity, of the capitalist production 

process dissolves certain illusory characteristics possessed by this process in isolation.


Give concrete examples of such illusory characteristics, either those which Marx is discussing, 

or others. 

[1685] Daleman: graded C Mere repetition or continuity of capitalist production process 

dissolves certain illusory characteristics which can take two different forms. 1. Things which 

appear advances are no longer advances. and 2. Expanded horizon brings to light separation 

which exists between producers and the means of production. Capitalistic reproduction 

reinforces the fact that the worker reproduces his neediness and then is forced to sell his 

labor again. The variable capital or capital advanced to the worker does not come from the 

capitalist but rather is obtained from selling the worker’s previously produced products. 

Hans: These are almost literal quotes of sentences from the Annotations pages 454, 456, 462. But you did not read 

it carefully enough. I had written that the expanded horizon shows not the separation itself but the reproduction of 

this separation. And it is not possible to obtain capital by selling something. A sale is a form change of something 

you already have. You only can achieve the money form of your capital by the sale. 

First Message by Daleman is [395]. 

[1731] Keltose: graded A To quickly summarize the three references Marx makes in relation 

to the continuity of the capitalist production: 

1. Simple reproduction: is when the capitalist pays the worker through drafts which go 

back to the capitalist, this process then further repeats itself as production continues. 

2. “By converting part of his capital into labor-power, the capitalist augments value of his 

entire capital.” The capitalist only receives this back too. 

3. From a social point of view, the working-class is basically an “appendage” of capital 

and the labor-process. Even the workers consumption represents the reproduction of capital. 

In all cases the capitalists benefits. The capitalist is always looking to “kill two birds 

with one stone.” He succeeds in most cases. The cycle of reproduction of capital and and 

isolation brings about alienation from social aspects as discussed by Marx. This distance 

from the real world entangles the worker deeper in the continuous cycle of production and 

the benefits of the capitalist. 

Hans: Very good. And these things are difficult to see if you just take a snapshot view. 

Message [1731] referenced by [2007SP:1083]. First Message by Keltose is [74]. 

Exam Question 592 is 399 in 1999SP, 494 in 2000fa, 523 in 2001fa, 563 in 2002fa, 643 


Exam Question 592 Why is the part of the capital advanced for wages called “variable 

capital”? 

[1505] Dange: (graded A) Variable Capital. The reason it is called “variable capital” 

is because it is the portion of capital that is invested in wages, which is used to buy laborpower. 

Marx calls it “variable” because it is that part of production which produces not only 

an equivalent of its value, but also a surplus-value [317:3]. This differs from constant capital, 

such as the raw materials of production, which are used up in the production process and do 

not produce any new value. Whereas the variable capital produces a surplus-value. 

Message [1505] referenced by [2007fa:585]. Next Message by Dange is [1506]. 



2003fa, 644 in 2004fa, and 703 in 2007SP: 

Question 593 Explain in your own words how the commodity form of the product and the 

money form of the commodity veil exploitation. 

[1429] Daleman: graded B The commodity form of the product and the money form veil 

exploitation because exploitation is not visible. The worker generally does not recognize the 

value of the product being produced because he is not present during the sale. The worker 

also does not realize that his wages represent part of the value that he himself created. 

Many workers even today do not realize this exploitation because it is not their job to sell 

the product or be involved in the finances in any way. Usually when a worker becomes privy 

to this exploitation and are displeased, they go away and are replaced. 

Hans: The fact that the workers are not present when their products are sold and that they are not involved in the 

finances of their employers undoubtedly influence the way how they see things. But Marx has described several 

other mechanisms, which are less obvious and therefore harder to penetrate. 


[1462] ADHH: graded A– The commodity form of the product veils exploitation because 

the workers are not aware that the value of the products they are producing for the capitalist 

comes from their labor. The fact that the workers are not aware of this makes it harder for 

them to do anything about the exploitation. 

The money form of the commodity veils exploitation because the worker gets paid for his 

labor in money and not with a commodity. He is even further removed from concept that his 

labor is what is produced the value in the commodity in the first place. 

The capitalist’s profits come from the exploitation of the workers during production and 

also during the exchange. The wages paid to the worker are spent buying commodities from 

the capitalist. Those wages come from the sale of the product that the worker made before, 

whose value comes from the labor of the workers. 

Hans: If you say that value comes from the worker’s labor (which is Marx’s view) then you cannot at the same 

time say that profits come from exchange. I am making this clarification because the first sentence in your last 

paragraph comes close to saying this. 

Message [1462] referenced by [1471] and [1509]. Next Message by ADHH is [1751]. 

[1471] MarxSchmarx: graded A Cloudy Exploitation. I think that ADHH in [1462] has 

touched the surface of how the commodity form of the product and the money form of the 

commodity veils exploitation. I would like to add a few things to his/her synopsis. ADHH 

states, “The commodity form of the product veils exploitation because the workers are not 

aware that the value of the products they are producing for the capitalist comes from their 

labor.” I think that the reason why they don’t see that they are producing the labor is essential 

to answering this question. The laborer gets a paycheck after working and toiling away for 

the day. He can see the commodities that he produced, but he can also see that they haven’t 

been sold. So, the worker believes that the capitalist is advancing him his wage and taking 

the risk of not getting his money back. However, by paying the laborer after the labor-power 

has been expended, the capitalist guarantees that a portion of the value of the commodity 

produced goes towards paying the worker.


I also think that ADHH is close when he/she says, “The money form of the commodity 

veils exploitation because the worker gets paid for his labor in money, and not with a commodity.” 

I don’t think that the thickening of the veil is directly caused by the capitalist not 

paying the worker in commodities. The worker doesn’t understand the transformation of 

the value that he created into money. Remember, the laborer sees that the capitalist hasn’t 

sold the commodity he produced. What he doesn’t see is the capitalist is paying the laborer 

with the money form of the worker’s labor that he received from selling the products that the 

worker produced the day (or week, or month. . . ) before. 

Message [1471] referenced by [1509] and [2007SP:1114]. Next Message by MarxSchmarx is [1520]. 

[1509] Phatteus: I think that both ADHH [1462] and MarxSchmarx [1471] explained this 

very well. I think that there is another portion to this. It has been stated that the worker 

receives a “portion” of the value of the commodity as wages. Because the worker does not 

see the sale of the commodities produced, they do not understand the true value of their 

labor. They are unable to see what their true worth is. For example, if a worker in a shoe 

factory makes 10 shoes a day. These shoes then sell for $50 each. In a two week period, 

they have made approximately $5000 worth of shoes. Yet, they do not see that these have 

sold therefore, when they are only paid $300 a week, they feel that they are being advanced 

a wage. The combination of the worker not seeing the commodity being sold, nor seeing the 

true value of the commodity further veils the exploitation of the worker. 

Hans: You are elaborating Daleman’s argument in [1429]. But your example is not convincing. I am sure the 

workers in the shoe factories knew the retail prices of the shoes they were making. (I am saying “were” because 

shoes are no longer manufactured in the United States.) 


[1519] Hans: A New Layer of Mystification. Assume for the sake of the argument that 

some big retail chain, call it Universal, was not only selling things but also producing the 

things they sold, and that it paid its workers not with money but with claim checks allowing 

the workers to go into the Universal stores and retrieve a certain amount of things, which is 

far below the number of things they produce while at work. 

Here it would be laughable if Universal wanted to argue that these claim checks were an 

advance to the workers, and it would be clear to everyone that a big part of the worker’s 

work was utterly unreimbursed. Universal’s TV ads explaining how meritorious it is that 

they move the things from the factory halls to the store shelves would not convince the 

viewers that the Universal workers get a fair deal. 

This story is not at counterfactual as it seems, because if you look at all capitalist firms 

together, they are in their combination doing exactly the same thing which our fictitional 

Universal store does. In Marx’s words, 

The capitalist class is constantly giving to the working class claim checks, 

in the form of money, on a portion of the product produced by the latter and 

appropriated by the former. The workers give these claim checks back just 

as constantly to the capitalists, and thereby withdraw from the latter their 

allotted share of their own product. 

The difference between Universal and the capitalist class as a whole is that Universal 

just takes a fork lift to transport the things from the factory hall to the store, while in the 


capitalist economy this transfer is mediated by sales and purchases between different firms. 

The market is a form of social coordination in which the individual firm is made reponsible 

for the social connection: if they produce something society does not need, then they take 

losses. Although big firms usually know exactly what they can sell and what they cannot, 

the image of someone standing on a street corner and not being able to sell their wares is 

powerful. It effaces in the mind of the worker the pervasive and maddening reality of his 

or her own exploitation in the midst of a society which supposedly is based on fairness and 

individual merit. 

Chapter 23 introduces us to an entirely new dimension of mystification: since the workers 

are atomized, they look at things only from an individual point of view, which makes many 

of the social connections invisible. 


Exam Question 594 is 401 in 1999SP, 496 in 2000fa, 525 in 2001fa, 565 in 2002fa, 692 


Exam Question 594 How does the illusion arise that the capitalist advances something to 

the worker when he pays him a wage? 

[1431] Daleman: (graded B+) The illusion that the capitalist advances the worker something 

by paying his wage arises because the worker does not realize the profits begin made 

by the capitalist because of his labor. Marx explains that the worker does not see that the 

product he produces is moving further and further away from him in the form of capital that 

he does not get. Granted he gets his wage which does pay for his labor, but his wage also 

serves to blind him of the truth that he is being exploited and the capital derived from the 

products he produced is leaving. 

Hans: Marx makes two arguments. A specific one that wages as they are usually paid and used are not an advance, 

which I tried to summarize in [1519], and a general one, that all capital, whether constant or variable, does not come 

from the capitalists but is accumulated surplus-value originating from the workers. You seem to refer to the second 

argument only, although you do not really bring the argument. This second argument depends on exploitation, but 

the first argument does not: even if the workers were paid a full equivalent of the value they produced, their wages 

would still not be something the employer advanced to them. 

A second point: Your answer explains why the workers do not see the real connections. The question asked 

something different, namely, how the workers get the false impressioin which they do have. 




Question 595 Does the capitalist, who started a business with his own capital, preserve this 

capital while consuming surplus-value, or does he consume his original capital and replace 

it with accumulated surplus-value? 

[1515] Surferboy: The capitalist of course consumes the surplus value while keeping the 

capital intact, because without the capital that he has invested, the business would be worth 

nothing. For example let’s say that the capitalist invests 1000 dollars. The surplus after each 

year is 200 dollars. After 5 years the yield would be equal to the capital that the capitalist 

has invested. The capital he has invested doesn’t really ever disappear, and the surplus is


what is he is consuming since the capital is what is producing the surplus he is receiving. 

Without capital there would be no surplus to be consumed. 

Hans: All these questions are asked in the context of Marx’s text and you are expected to answer them in Marx’s 

framework or with reference to Marx’s framework. Marx is certainly not stupid; why do you think he got this 

obvious fact wrong? 

Message [1515] referenced by [1552] and [2007SP:1121]. Next Message by Surferboy is [1589]. 

[1552] Iblindone: graded A In response to Surferboys’ response in [1515] to this question; 

I disagree with what he is saying. If I read his response to the question correctly he is saying 

“The capitalist thinks, that he is consuming the produce of the unpaid labor of others, i.e., 

the surplus-value, and is keeping intact his original capital.” [714:2/o] 

This is not the point that Marx is saying. Marx follows that statement with “but what 

he thinks (the capitalist) cannot alter facts.” Simply stating that this is not the case. Marx 

clarifies this later in this paragraph by saying “after he has consumed the equivalent of his 

original capital, the value of his present capital merely represents the sum total of surplusvalue 

appropriated by him without payment. Not a single atom of the value of his old capital 

continues to exist.” To answer the question that is asked; the capitalist consumes the original 

capital and replaces it with accumulated surplus-value. 

Hans: Good point. But as you say, Marx simply states that the capitalist’s thinking differs from the facts, without 

a coherent justification. For a complete answer of the question, it would be useful to analyze the principles used 

by Marx to come to his conclusion about what the facts are, and argue whether these principles have more truth in 

them than the principles used by the capitalist who thinks he still has his original capital in his hands. 

Message [1552] referenced by [2007SP:1121]. First Message by Iblindone is [112]. 


2007SP, and 703 in 2008fa: 

Question 601 Whenever Marx contemplates both social and individual points of view, he 

acts as if the social point of view was the true point of view. Is this justified? 

[1576] Astclair: I think that is is justified; after all, Marx is discussing capitalism in the 

social context. The open market, which is what capitalism is all about, is based upon social 

conditions. Social points of view are generally dictated by the mainstream views, or are 

results of natural tendencies (results of the free market). 

Hans: Your examples (market, mainstream views, laws of nature) show that social conditions are not necessarily 

what individuals want. Do you think that this makes the individual point of view less valid or, to use the word in 

the question, less true? 

Message [1576] referenced by [1596] and [1612]. Next Message by Astclair is [1652]. 

[1596] MrPink: graded A Social vs Individual. I agree with Astclair [1576] that Marx is 

in fact justified in treating the social point of view as the true view. 

But I’d like to add: It is not to say that the individual point of view is not important, it 

is just less important when considering what is needed to better the conditions for exploited 

laborers and society in general. Alyeska [2003fa:604] makes a point about the laborer being 

a “cog in the wheel of capitalism”. If we look at capitalism through the point of view of the 

individual there may be needs of others that are overlooked. This would be self serving and 

create more opportunity for inequality and exploitation. 

Earlier in the semester the topic of taxes came up in the class discussion forum. This 

provides a good example. An individual with no children must contribute to state sponsored 


education programs for children. She has zero individual benefit in making this contribution 

and if it were optional might chose not to pay; however this would only benefit her in the 

short term. Paying taxes that go to education helps to provide a better environment and 

society for her to live in. The only way the individual point of view can be heard is through 

voting, nonetheless the outcome still results in a social point of view. Her vote has only a 

proportionate impact to her role/place in society. 

Hans: You are trying to sweeten the grim conclusion that society is more important than the individual by the 

claim that individuals would be too selfish if they were in the driver’s seat. I doubt that. 


[1612] Prairierose: I agree with Astclair [1576] and Mr. Pink’s [1596] responses that it 

is justified. In the beginning of class we touched on the social point of view in the idea of 

the wife swap. The wife swap does not have an exchange value because it is not a socially 

acceptable practice. Therefore, if the individual wants to participate in wife swapping he 

could not because it is not socially acceptable thus there is no exchange value. Therefore, in 

the capitalist system the role the social point of view assumes is the true point of view due 

to the exchange value. 

Hans: With the wife swapping example I wanted to say exactly the opposite of what you are using it for. You are 

saying that people cannot swap wives because wives do not have exchange-value. But Joseph does swap his wife 

with his friend. He is a counterexample to your thesis. People can do things on an individual basis which are not 

choreographed by a social relation. 

BonzoIsGod did say in [34] that wives can only obtain exchange-value if wife swapping becomes both socially 

acceptable and a regular practice in society. I tried to respond in [35] that social acceptability is not necessary, all 

you need is that it becomes a regular practice. But perhaps I was too subtle about it. 


[1614] Tink: content A form 95% This is justified in Marx’s examples because he illustrates 

that while the individual point of view may “appear” to exist differently than the 

social point of view, the social is what holds true for real capitalism. Early in chapter 23 

Marx discusses how production must be continous or periodic to exist. He says that “every 

child knows that a nation which ceased to work, I will not say for a year, but even for a few 

weeks, would perish.” This may not hold true for the individual because an individual can 

consume without producing as long as someone else is producing. However it does hold 

true for society. If the entire society simply consumed without producing it would crumble. 

If this happened, the individuals’ previous situation (of being able to consume without 

producing) no longer matters, because they too would not be able to consume, because no 

production exists. Thus Marx is justified when he acts as though the social point of view is 

true. If Marx were to act as though the individual’s situation was the rule, then the behavior 

of the society would be irrelevant and difficult to examine. 

Hans: Good example for the relevance of the social point of view. This example is not specific to capitalism but 

holds in any society. 


[1619] BBQ: Marx does contemplate both social and individual points of view, however, 

it seems as if the social point of view is emphasized most. I feel this is a justified statement 

due to the fact that Marx discusses capitalism within a social realm. The overall goal of 

Marx’s theory is centered around the idea that as society rise and fall, they in turn impede 

the development of human productive power. Marx sees the historical process as proceeding


through a necessary series of modes of production, culminating in communism. This overall 

perspective is taken from a social point of view rather than the individual. 

Hans: Would it be equally valid to discuss capitalism within an individual realm and write a theory of capitalism 

which is centered around the individual instead of society? 


[1630] Pisciphiliac: graded A Justification and Wife Swapping. Marx is justified to act 

as if the social point of view was the true point of view. Capitalism is not just the actions of 

one capitalist or laborer; it is the collective social actions of all capitalists and all laborers. In 

most cases, if one were to look at only one or two capitalists (or laborers) you are likely to see 

actions and ideas that are not the same as the majority social action and ideas. Regardless of 

the individual point of view, the overall social view is the one that is important to capitalism. 

I would like to disagree with Prairierose’s comment [1612] about wife swapping: “The 

wife swap does not have an exchange value because it is not a socially acceptable practice. 

Therefore, if the individual wants to participate in wife swapping he could not because it is 

not socially acceptable thus there is no exchange value.” If two people are willing to “wife 

swap” there is an exchange value, even if it is not the socially acceptable practice. Cocaine 

is not a socially acceptable norm, but it certainly has an exchange-value. 

Hans: Your first paragraph is very good. You are saying that in capitalism, social relations often override individual 

intentions. 

Regarding the wife swapping, you are right that it does not need to become a socially acceptable practice for 

wives to have an exchange-value. But two people swapping their wives is not enough to give wives an exchangevalue. 


[1636] Thelonius: It is unclear whether the question is asking if the social point of view 

itself is empirically justified, or if it is justified in saying that Marx’s stance supports the 

social point of view over the individual one. As to whether it is justified to support the 

social point of view by virtue of its nature, I don’t by any means believe that the social point 

of view is absolutely justified. This is a question of values and ethics, to which there is 

no common standard today (if ever) of what is maintained as being universally valued and 

ethical. Decision makers are expected to base legislative policy on optimally beneficial costbenefit 

analyses, but there is always fallout, undesirable externalities will always result from 

legislative action. While Garrett Hardins essay on the “Tragedy of the Commons”, illustrates 

that an individually motivated social point of view like ours can be ultimately undesirable 

to all of the individuals that make up a society, de facto points of view on a social scale 

typically become common law. In this sense, the social point of view is justified. 

Democracy has been promoted as the social point of view in which each individual can 

get what they wish from society and is thereby cultivated ground for capitalism. In regards to 

Karl Marx’s attitude toward the social vs. individual points of view, this question represents 

the type of Hegelian dialectic, which Marx and his contemporaries became immersed in 

while at university. Politically, Marx consistently advocates the egalitarian distribution of 

wealth which occurs first through the laborer’s wage into an economic multipler effect that 

ultimately benefits society at large. The capitalist who owns the means of production will 

assert that he/she is morally justified in owning the labour-power of wage workers, since 

that labor-power was sold by voluntary means. This point of view is justifiably the most 

individualistic, and supports those who possess the means of production. 


Marx asserts that labor-power is only metamorphosed into a commodity by the wage 

laborer through compulsory means which are not voluntary, but done out of neccesity for 

survival and subsistence. Supporting the greater distribution of wealth to the wage laborer 

is asserting that the social point of view is more truly justified than the individualistic one 

held by the owner of commodity production. Marx insisted that Democracy is inherent 

in Socialism, the empowerment of the proletariat. Under Capitalism it is the individual 

capitalist who prominently benefits, under Social-Democracy, it is the entire society of the 

proletariat who prominently benefits. Marx was one of the definitive Social-Democrats who 

has lived, and therefore unarguably promotes the social point of view as being the true point 

of view. 

Final Grading Note by Hans: You have made many excellent and engaging contributions during the Semester, 

and the grades you received clearly trended upwards, despite [1897]. 


[1645] Ernesto: Social vs. individual. I agree with some of the comments from the 

preceding answers. As Pisciphiliac said in [1630], social acceptability fails to dictate what 

is marketable and what is not. In addition to the other comments, the reason a social context 

takes precedence is because of our inability to isolate a situation and explain it without 

looking at the effects it will have on other factors. A car engine can’t just be explained by 

analyzing a piston or spark plug. Understanding comes with the knowledge of how different 

parts of the motor interact in order for it to operate correctly. 

Hans: Good example. We live in a very interconnected world. It is difficult to conceive how an individualistic 

point of view would get anything right. The motor is moving because the pistons are jumping up and down for joy? 


[1656] SueGirl: graded A The comments of previous students regarding question 601, for 

instance [1614], have been persuasive, and I originally planned to write in expansion of their 

arguments. But after reading some of the archived submissions regarding this topic, I have 

realized that this concept is more complicated than I anticipated. 

Although Marx may weigh the social point of view more heavily in his analysis than the 

individual point of view, Marx believes that both the individual and the social are influential 

forces. As Hans indicated in his Fall 2004 comment [2004fa:521], “the social relations form 

a system which has its own dynamics, and its structure can and must be understood before 

one can make sense of the individual actions in this system.” In other words, both points 

of view are important, but the social is needed to understand the individual in our capitalist 

system. 

If our social relations were designed with the individual in mind instead, as Hans suggests 

a more utopian society would be, then Marx may have weighed the individual point of view 

more heavily than the social. Apparently in our capitalist society, we are not yet at this stage. 

Although Marx may be justified in tipping the scale in favor of the social point of view, 

this is a necessity due to “flaws in our system” (Hans, [2004fa:521]). However, if individuals 

had more control over their social relations, versus society having control over them, then 

the scale should be reversed. 


[1677] PAE: response to BBQ. I agree with BBQ [1619] and others in saying that Marx 

does contemplate both individual and social points of view and leans towards social points of


view out of necessity. However I think his initial reasoning behind this is the social climate 

at the time. I think Marx realizes that the collective workingman or industrialist is basically 

a powder keg ready to blow, and society’s capitalistic views needed to be re-evaluated at the 

time. Marx does use a historical context in explaining his points but I believe his writings 

are to serve as a warning for future generations of what is possible and what can happen to 

capitalist, working man, market, and many other economic factors. 

So while I do agree with BBQ in some ways I think you missed the point of looking at 

Marx’s writings as not just in historical context but also a commentary on the social climate 

facing him in addition to an outlook of the future. That is why I think he uses a social point 

of view, he would not be able to asses or predict future conditions using an individual point 

of view. 


[1678] McDugall: graded A Marx discusses both aspects because he wants to compare 

and contract the difference between individual and social points of view. I believe he is 

justified in showing a bias towards the social view. 

Marx discusses capitalism throughout his book in reference to its effects on society. He 

carefully analyzes the impact of capitalism on society and how the decisions come about. 

Marx is concerned with the social consequences of capitalism and tends to promote the best 

social choice. He does not promote the individual view as much because it tends to detract 

from his overall belief that most decisions should be based on what is best for society. 

Marx also believes that capitalists are preventing the natural evolution of humanity because 

of their interest in profiting from labor. Capitalism has turned humans into machines, 

working for subsistence and nothing more. Marx believes there is more important things to 

life and that a laborer should not be profited from by people who do not work. There are 

many complexities regarding the social structures of capitalism but Marx derives that most 

of the functions of capitalism do not provide adequate restitution for workers. 

Marx inevitably wishes that society works as a whole to progress and mature. The time 

frame in which Marx writes his books is also critical in understanding his point of view. 

Capitalists were taking advantage of workers and were walking around like “fat cats”. Marx 

is justified in using the social point of view because without it he would have a difficult time 

proving and promoting his ideals. 

Final Grading Note by Hans: You didn’t make enough submissions, but what you write makes sense. 


[1712] Diggity: graded A Marx has repeatedly emphasized the importance of the social 

relationship of capital. From all aspects of the production, it is a socially involved process. 

The capitalists depend on the labor force to carry out the production, and the laborers depend 

on the capitalists to receive wages to be able to provide the necessities of life. If we were 

to consider different aspects of the production, namely the actual selling of the products, we 

look at an exchange system. The general equivalent is also a socially involved process as a 

seller has confidence that the medium of exchange received for their product will have an 

equal value to be able to purchase a different commodity that the seller may need. From 

what Marx has pointed out, I do agree that the social point of view may be considered the 

true point of view. 


Hans: Your examples show how much individuals have to rely on the functioning of the social structure. This 

is very true, we often are not aware of this. But this does not mean that society’s point of view is truer than the 

individual’s. 



2008fa, and 803 in 2010fa: 

Question 602 Explain the sentence: The capitalist profits, not only by what he receives from 

but also by what be gives to, the laborer. 

[1435] Daleman: (graded A–) The sentence: The capitalist profits not only not only by 

what he receives but also by what he gives to the laborer is descriptive of the capitalist’s 

innate desire to gain more. According to Marx the wages paid to workers are spent on life’s 

necessities such as food etc. These necessities are then used to recondition the body of the 

worker enabling him to work another day. Thus we can see that the wage paid to the worker 

translates into part of production and the reproduction of capital for the capitalist. This 

process allows for the capitalist to always have fresh labor at his disposal. 

Hans: You explain accurately how the capitalist benefits, but I don’t see how this should be “descriptive of the 

capitalist’s innate desire to gain more.” It is rather descriptive of a social structure which innately privileges the 

capitalist. 


[1441] Snickers: content B+ form 95% In the question, the capitalists profits from the 

worker by his productivity and what is made of his productivity, explaining what the capitalist 

gives the worker is a little more in depth. Daleman [1435] talks about how giving the 

worker money as a means of reconditioning the body for the next day. I agree with that but 

feel that there is more to it. The worker needs to consume for his subsistence and he is given 

capital for his labor-power which in turn gives the capitalist more labor-power for his exploitation. 

Secondly, if the worker is receiving pay for the maintenance of his body and his 

families, the capitalist would ideally want the kids to grow up and buy his products as well. 

To keep the cycle of capitalism going for him, in essence his reproduction of the capitalist 

market through the grown-up kids. As Hans explains that the maintenance and reproduction 

of the working-class is the necessary condition for the reproduction of capital. So when the 

workers’ needs are fullfilled, the capitalist has to be benefiting. The one part of the question 

at the end talks about how the capitalist wants to reduce the individuals’ consumptions as 

far as possible to what is just necessary. I’m having trouble understanding this part? Can 

anyone help? 

Hans: In response to your question: Marx argues that the capitalist benefits if the workers eat well and take good 

care of themselves. But the workers are motivated to do this anyway, they don’t need incentives from the capitalists 

to take care of themselves, therefore most capitalists end up keeping wages low, in order to reduce their costs, 

instead of giving the workers decent wages. 

On the other hand, your main argument is that the capitalists also benefit from high wages because they need 

someone to buy their products. According to Marx, this is a fallacy. Question 603 addresses this, see for instance 

my [2001fa:530]. 


[1510] Jerm: Double Benefits. The capitalist is getting double the benefits when he receives 

and when he gives to the laborer. When he receives from the laborer that profit goes 

directly into to him, and when he gives to the laborer he is investing in his future production.


By giving the laborer just enough that he depends on the capitalist for subsistence, the capitalist 

is ensuring that the laborer will show up for work the next day. As the laborer shows 

up for work each day the capitalist is ensuring a productive and profitable future. 

Hans: Interesting thought which says that the capitalist really benefits in three ways. (a) He benefits directly 

because the labor-power received creates profits for him. (b) He benefits from what he gives the worker because 

this enables the worker to show up for work the next day. Finally (c) he benefits from not giving too much to the 

worker, because this creates the necessity for the worker to show up for work the next day. 

Final Grading Note by Hans: Here and also in [147] you brought in relevant thoughts which nobody else had. 

Message [1510] referenced by [2010fa:925]. Next Message by Jerm is [1616]. 

[1511] Gdubmoe: graded A– The statement “The capitalist profits, not only by what 

he receives from but also by what he gives to, the laborer” suggests that a capitalist, if he 

rewards or takes care of his employees, will have a greater return rate of profits. The text 

explains how laborers are more efficient and can produce more if their bodies and minds 

consume the necessary nutrients. The capitalist benefits from this satisfaction if the laborer 

fulfills his or her needs because they are more productive at the workplace. Therefore, 

the capitalist should provide certain things that would satisfy the laborer; in return, he will 

inherit the profits gained from this increased level of productivity. This idea of Marx is 

similar to that of the theory of “if you take care of me, i’ll take care of you.” 

Hans: Within certain limits it looks as if there was a commonality of interests between capitalists and workers. 

But Marx argues in chapter 25 that, if you look at the broader picture, you see that this is an illusion. 

Message [1511] referenced by [1512], [1513], and [1560]. Next Message by Gdubmoe is [1539]. 

[1512] TriPod: This statement is correct. I would agree with [1511] when he says that 

if a capitalist gives to his laborers he will have a greater rate of return to profits. I would 

add that when the capitalist gives to the laborers he not only adds to profits but to the the 

health of the capitalist company. Any time you have a good work enviroment and give to 

your workers they will be happy and when the worker is happy the capitalist benefits. In my 

line of work it is commission based and when the owners spends more on advertising we 

always get more business which leads to more money for us but he also gains more. Again 

this leads to us being more motivated which in turn leads to more profit for him. 

Hans: Computer programmers used to think the same way—until the dot-com bubble burst and foreign competition 

is looming, see [1138]. Capitalism is a deeply contradictory system which gets itself in trouble all the time; and 

when it is in trouble, all the gloves come off and the workers suffer. 


[1513] Ash: graded A I would agree with both [1511] and [1512]. The capitalist profits 

by taking care of his/her laborers, but would add that it is not merely because the laborer 

is better nourished or making more money, but because the laborer sees a benefit to giving 

more when he/she is receiving more. We tend to focus on the evils of the capitalist, but aren’t 

we all trying to “capitalize” on every front. I.e. how can we get the most out of school, or 

make the most money, or work as little as possible with the maximum benefit? It is a vicious 

cycle of taking advantage of each other. 

Hans: Good point. With good wages the capitalist not only receives physical ability but also the goodwill and 

co-operation of the worker. The workers probably have mixed feelings about this. Not because they do not want to 

be taking advantage of the capitalist, they are not, but because they are buying into a demeaning system in order to 

receive just some crumbs off the table. 


[1560] Jimmie: graded A Double-“benefit” In the current discussion of question 602, I 

think one critical aspect of the double benefit discussion is missing. The capitalist ultimately 


benefits because it helps the system to perpetuate itself. When the laborer receives he is, 

as Gdubmore [1511] points out, more productive because of nutrients and satisfaction. In 

addition to this rise in productivity, the laborer becomes complacent with the system. The 

laborer is now just another satisfied wage-laborer in the system. As long as capitalist can 

keep laborers content with their positions, they can continually rob them of their surplusvalue. 

In this sense, the capitalist benefits from “giving” to the laborers. 

Hans: This was also addressed by Ash in [1513], but you are looking at it from the point of view of the capitalist, 

while Ash showed what such a buy-off looks like from the worker’s side. 



2003fa, 715 in 2007SP, 703 in 2008SP, 806 in 2010fa, and 862 in 2012fa: 

Question 605 Regarding the question to what extent consumption is productive, Marx says 

that the individual consumption of the laborer is unproductive for the laborer, but productive 

for the capitalist and the state. Comment on this. 

[1498] Gza: graded A– Consumption of the Worker. Marx considers individual consumption 

to be unproductive in the sense that it is unproductive “for himself” (Marx 718). 

Consumption only produces the “needy individual” (Marx 718). 

Marx also asserts that consumption of the laborer is productive for the capitalist and for 

the state because “it is the production of power that creates the wealth of others” (Marx 718). 

The individual laborer’s consumption perpetuates the working class and supplies the capitalist 

with the necessary labor-power to consume. Consumption that is beyond the laborer’s 

need and entertains simply pleasure is unproductive in that it is unnecessary. Marx even 

states “if capital were to cause a rise of wages and an increase in the consumption of laborpower 

by capital, the additional capital would be consumed unproductively” (Marx 718). 

In a sense Marx is arguing that any consumption that is external to “need” or necessity is 

deemed unproductive because productive is seen in terms of producing or providing what is 

necessary. 

Marx understands that consumption is a natural feature of production. 

However, he also understand that consumption is a “factor in the process of reproduction 

of capital” (Marx 719). 

Under Marx’s analysis, the reproduction of labor-power becomes the form of worker’s 

consumption. This is beneficial for the capitalist and results in a force that pushes workers 

to sell themselves to capitalist. 

The furtherment of consumption is not only unproductive beyond necessity but the perpetuation 

of the capitalist mentality only hinders the working class need of liberation. 

Hans: You are confusing the arguments of the bourgeois, i.e., pro-capitalist economists, and Marx’s retort to 

them. The bourgeios economists started with the idea that the personal consumption of the workers beyond their 

immediate needs is unproductive. Marx would never agree with this. In order to combat this idea, he escalates it to 

the point where it becomes openly absurd by saying: if you look at it from this point of view, you must say that all 

consumption of the worker is unproductive for the worker.


Also your last paragraph is entirely against the spirit of Marx. You will never hear Marx say: I want the working 

class to suffer more so that they see the need to liberate themselves. 




Question 608 Explain how Simple Reproduction reproduces the separation between the 

worker and the means of production. 

[1475] Daleman: (graded C) Simple reproduction produces a separation because the skills 

of the worker are being overlooked. The more skilled the worker is the greater the benefit 

to the capitalist. By allowing only skilled workers to perform only simple reproduction the 

capitalist is not getting his money’s worth so-to-speak. The separation is manifested because 

the capitalist could be using the skilled worker to perform other more complex tasks that 

would benefit the capitalist more than the simple reproduction tasks. 

Hans: You seem to think that by “simple reproduction” Marx means production tasks which do not require many 

skills. 


[1506] Dange: graded B+ Skilled Workers. The laborer does not receive the fruits of 

that which he produces, the capitalist does. The reproduction process forces the laborer to 

sell his labor-power to the capitalist, which the capitalist then uses for to his own benefit to 

produce and accumulate more capital (p. 471). Daleman said in [1475]: “The more skilled 

the worker is the greater the benefit to the capitalist.” This substantiates the point that Simple 

Reproduction reproduces the separation between the worker and the means of production. 

The process further continues the exploitation of the worker since he is increasing his skills 

and the capitalist benefits from it because the worker is producing more surplus-value for 

the capitalist’s benefit. 

Hans: The capitalists consider as their property whatever skills are accumulated by the working class. But whenever 

they can, they organize the production process in such a way that lower skills are needed by the workers to 

operate the machinery. This is another mechanism through which the capitalist production process reproduces and 

deepens the rift between laborers and capitalists. 



Question 609 In which sense is the working class the property of the capitalists even before 

they work for the capitalists? Which formal aspects of the capital relation conceal this 

economic bondage? Which examples does Marx use to show that the capitalists very openly 

consider the workers their property? 

[1479] Robgodfell: graded A+ An Iron Wrought Invisible Thread. We, the laborers, 

find ourselves bound to our capitalist bosses by “invisible threads” that reach back along 

a historical process which has rewarded the strong, daring, and dare I say cunning, to be 

leaders of their tribe. 

Leaders became chiefs, chiefs became nobles, nobles became kings, kings became emperors, 

and when it seemed that the deification of glorified animals could go no farther, alas, 


another evolutionary transformation brought the lords of the past out of the primordial muck: 

and out marched the gilded men. 

They were opalescence; as the son-reincarnate tied by illustrious cravats and veneration 

of a mineral of which they had wrought from the earth. And they worshiped falsely; their 

commonality forgotten and discarded. 

Long live the Capitalists. 

Men which for millennia had consistently gathered control over the resources that were 

previously unclaimed except by those who required them for subsistence. And when enough 

had been concentrated in the hands of a controlling elite they could rightfully declare: 

“Work, polish, spit and shine because only then may you dine; and don’t worry your pretty 

little heads, if it proves too tough, tomorrow you shall be dead. And from the fields of men, 

fruit for picking, we the capitalist shall find the ripest for the pricking.” 

“Nay!” you obstinately declare, “It isn’t so! We are free men, we choose how and who 

we shall be!” Where then my insightful Tiresias, in our age of free agency, a mere 200 

individuals who have more wealth than 2 billion of their “fellow” individuals would lead us 

to realize that certainly “agreeing to horrible conditions is their own prerogative (Surferboy, 

[1492])?” 


Until “1815, the emigration of mechanics employed in machine making was, in England, 

forbidden, under grievous pains and penalties” [719:2]. What an odd thing this prerogative. 

But from our labor we have food and commodities which we freely buy to sustain us! 

“It is the process itself that incessantly hurls back the laborer on to the market as a vendor 

of his labor-power, and that incessantly converts his own product into a means by which 

another man can purchase him” [723:2/o]. 

Our invisible threads are as pliable to us as if we were bound in chains and sold on the 

block. It makes not a whit of difference that we take ourselves to this auctioning block to be 

reduced to capitalist chattel, for if we don’t we surely shall waste away. 

But under the continuous process of reproduction of commodities and the surplus-value 

taken from our own hands in the guise of mutual equality via wage-contract and the commodities 

we can claim/buy a right to, we sign ourselves away so that we may eat and see 

another day. 



[1514] BBQ: Marx talked about unproductive consumption as consumption exceeding the 

minimum. In individual consumption nothing is reproduced and it therefore “exceeds the 

minimum” as it relates to themself. 

Consumption is productive to the capitalist and to the State because wealth is created and 

the minimum is not exceeded. The production of the power of others allows a productive 

margin for both the capitalist and the State. 

Hans: Please read my comments at the end of [1498].




2003fa, 665 in 2004fa, 736 in 2007SP, 707 in 2007fa, 736 in 2008SP, 741 in 2008fa, 774 


Question 612 The capitalist depends on the worker for profit, and the worker depends on 

the capitalist for survival. Does this mean that workers and capitalists have the same interests? 

[1538] Phatteus: No this does not mean that workers and capitalists have the same interests. 

As was stated in the annotations when discussing the increase in capital and the 

increase in the working class, “accumulation is the contradictory unity of increase of capital 

and growth of the working class.” These two work in unity, yet their goals and purposes are 

contradictory. It also states, that though capital needs the wage-labor, “capital is still selective. 

Wage labor is only then useful for capital if its price is low enough.” The capitalist has 

the upper hand in this situation, and gets more from the unity than the worker does. 

Hans: Yes they are a contradictory unity, but just calling something a contradictory unity is not enough. Now the 

small print counts: in what way are they necessary for each other, and in what way do they contradict each other? 

Message [1538] referenced by [1561], [1568], and [2008SP:781]. Next Message by Phatteus is [1707]. 

[1561] Claire: Capitalist v Worker. The short answer to this question is no. Yes it is true 

that the capitalist depends on the worker(s) to gain profit and the worker(s) depends on the 

capitalist in order to survive, however their interests are on different sides of the spectrum. 

On one end, because the worker and capitalist need each other to survive they can benefit 

from each other. On the other end, the capitalist is picky and wage labor is only used if it is 

cheap enough. In this sense the capitalist is seen as a Scrooge in A Christmas Carol story 

by Charles Dickens in that capitalists are selfish and do not care about the well being of the 

worker. As Phatteus stated in [1538] “The capitalist has the upper hand in this situation”. 

Hans: This is an elaboration of Phatteus’s answer. I have no objection to such a co-operative approach: someone 

starts with an answer defining the framework in which it to answer it, the next person adds a little to it, etc. 


[1565] Legolas: The workers and capitalists do not have the same interests. Marx said 

capitalists depend on the workers for profit; however, this is only a small part of the equation 

for capitalists, they also need the means of production, increased technology and laborpower. 

Capitalists desire accumulation of wealth therefore it is a contradiction of interests 

from the working class because the workers do not desire wealth, they desire food and basic 

living entities. While the workers live first to survive, the capitalists, in their aggressive 

mind, live to survive through the exploitation of their workers. Every person is in the game 

of ‘survival of the fittest’, but the capitalists only partly depends on the worker for profit, 

while the worker is forced to depend solely on the capitalist for survival. 

Hans: On the surface you are right, the capitalists seem all-powerful. But if Marx’s theory is right, then the workers 

are the ones with the ultimate power, since their labor is the sole source of value and surplus-value. This makes the 

situation of the capitalists somewhat precarious, they are dancing on a sleeping giant. 

Message [1565] referenced by [1568], [1585], and [2008SP:781]. Next Message by Legolas is [1626]. 

[1568] SueGirl: graded A Legolas’ comments [1565] regarding the interests of the capitalist 

and the workers seemed to more clearly state what Marx was attempting to explain 

than Phatteus’ answer [1538]. Legolas included information about the means of production 


which is the pawn in the hand of the capitalist in getting control over the workers. Owning 

the means of production gives the capitalist the ability to hire workers and the illusion of 

doing a favor for the workers who could not acquire the means of production by themselves. 

Although this provides the worker with the means to earn money for necessities, this does 

not fulfill the interests of the worker completely. The worker also has an innate interest in 

performing a work which is satisfying and stimulating - one which flows from his own desires. 

Instead, he is required to perform a job that is alien to his own nature as a human being 

and he experiences what Marx calls the alienation of labor. 

In other words, the worker’s interests include: 

1.) Earning enough money for necessities and hopefully enough money to get ahead 

someday. 

2.) Performing a job that is satisfying and stimulating - one which he is interested in. 

3.) The feeling of self-worth which comes from a job well done. 

4.) Security - freedom from doubt, anxiety or fear about his job. The confidence that he 

will not lose his job. 

5.) Respect from his superiors and fellow workers. 

6.) Rewards for his hard work. 

7.) To do well at what he does. 

8.) To have time and energy for life outside of work. 

The capitalist’s interests include: 

1.) (As Legolas stated) Accumulation of wealth. 

2.) To beat competition in their industry. 

3.) To hire quality workers for as little as possible. 

4.) To comply with labor, safety and health laws in order to not receive fines. 

5.) To minimize expenses. 

6.) To maximize labor and productivity. 

7.) Loyalty from workers. 

8.) Never having to be in the position of the worker. 

The difference between the interests of the capitalists and those of the worker, is that 

many of the capitalist’s interests compromise the interests of the worker. For instance, if the 

capitalist desires to hire workers for as little as possible, the worker may never have enough 

money for necessities. If the capitalist wants to maximize labor and productivity, he may 

sacrifice the time and energy the worker has outside of work. Maximizing productivity may 

also stop the worker from having a job that is satisfying and stimulating. 

For example, my husband worked at Microsoft for years as a computer programmer. In 

order to maximize productivity, Microsoft split his job into many different pieces. Instead


of being able to program software (like he used to do) they divided the labor so that all he 

was in charge of was testing a small piece of the software every day. [Imagine if a surgeon 

was only allowed to cut open the skin of each patient and not operate inside of them. It 

would be greatly unfulfilling.] Anyway, it became so monotonous and unstimulating that 

my husband accepted a position with another smaller company that would allow him to 

complete a project from start to finish. 

The interests of the capitalist and the worker are not the same. All of the capitalist’s 

interests treat the worker as a commodity. The worker’s interests, however, all focus on 

being treated like a human being. 

Message [1568] referenced by [2008fa:1216] and [2010fa:1030]. Next Message by SueGirl is [1569]. 

[1583] Fidel: George Lucas has a fondness for the idea of symbiosis. The Jedi and the 

Mitochlorians cannot exist one without the other. It is true that the capitalist depends on 

the laborer for profits and the laborer depends on the capitalist. This could be considered a 

symbiosis but not in the same manner as that of George Lucas’ mythical tale due to the lack 

of material or political equality. The idea of equality between capital and labor is left out of 

the equation at this time. Both have needs that are met by the other but their goals differ. 

Labor has the interest of survival and accumulating capital (albeit at a much reduced rate) 

while the capitalist has the interest of cultivating and growing labor thereby increasing profit 

and suppressing labor’s ability to accumulate capital and organize. In this scenario capital 

always has the upper hand because of its control of inputs. 

Hans: The workers don’t have the interest to accumulate capital at a reduced rate. They have the interest to control 

the means of production which they need to work and live. 

Fidel: In the syllabus you mentioned that throughout the course we would work on detecting racism, classism, etc. 

in our writing. Like most people I tend to see the world through my own paradigm. As I thought about this question 

and did the reading I kept placing myself in the “shoes” of labor. I think that my desire to accumulate capital even 

though I am not a capitalist per se has to do with my conditioning in a capitalist system. My response was colored 

with a “we’re all capitalists” bias. 

Message [1583] referenced by [2008SP:781]. Next Message by Fidel is [1585]. 

[1585] Fidel: I agree with [1565] that in a capitalist system the capitalist is more aggressive 

while the labor is in “survival” mode. In addition and not necessarily in contradiction 

to what you are saying I believe that the idea of capital accumulation is planted in the minds 

of labor and that they also have that goal but do not have the means of achieving it. This 

in turn psychologically enslaves labor because the desire is there and the wheels are turning 

but nothing is moving. 

Hans: It is not just a psychological problem; it is their human right to have control over the noblest part of their 

lives, their working hours, and to have access to the natural and social resources of the society into which they are 

born. 



2003fa, 672 in 2004fa, 744 in 2007SP, 715 in 2007fa, 749 in 2008fa, 782 in 2009fa, 851 

in 2010fa, and 914 in 2012fa: 

Question 619 Why is it more beneficial for capital to keep the working class in a state of 

“easy and liberal dependence” than to exert the maximum of surplus-value from them? 


[1595] Avatar: graded A This question about the benefit of keeping the working class 

in a state of “easy and liberal dependence” reminds me of the saying: You can shear a 

sheep many times, but you can only skin him once. Meaning that in capitalism, reasonable 

amounts of surplus can be extracted from workers who are kept in a reasonably easy system, 

but yoking maximum amounts of surplus to the detriment of worker’s “easy dependence” 

would threaten the system of accumulation: a system which relies on workers who are kept 

docile by getting enough of their surplus labor back in the form of their wage that they 

will continue to bind themselves to the system. In the accumulation, it is important for the 

proletariat’s dependence on capital to be endurable, otherwise it could not continue. As 

capital grows according to accumulation, it is growing in scope, not in severity. Capital’s 

realm is more extensive (enveloping the working class), but not more severe. 

An analogy to explain the “grip” of capital on workers is to think of it in terms of a 

relationship between two people. (This example doesn’t really show the exploitive nature 

of capital, because healthy friendships are not exploitive. It’s the best analogy I could come 

up with, however.) The more you put into a relationship with a person (capital), the more 

they get (surplus labor) and the more you get (wage). Through this process, the relationship 

(capital) grows; the more it grows, the more each party benefits (more surplus and higher 

wages). As a relationship grows, people tend to depend on it more and more. They depend 

on the support (wage) that they get. The relationship, if big enough, can completely consume 

them and they could be bound to it, like workers are bound to capital by the golden chain. 

Message [1595] referenced by [2007fa:662], [2008fa:1173], and [2012fa:1520]. Next Message by Avatar is [1618]. 

Question 621 is 398 in 1997sp, 395 in 1997ut, 675 in 2004fa, 746 in 2007SP, 717 in 


916 in 2012fa: 

Question 621 What does Marx use the metaphor of a golden chain for? Why does he say 

the chain has become heavier? 

[1582] Mason: Marx is referring to the dependence of wage labor on capital and the connection 

of inescapable fate of low wages, and he discusses how this dependence develops 

with the accumulation of capital. When Marx refers to the golden chain he is making the 

statement that the “rise in the price of labor as a consequence of the accumulation of capital, 

no more abolishes the exploitation and dependence of the wage laborer than do better clothing, 

food and treatment, and a larger peculium, abolish that of the slave.” He is basically 

saying that by giving the laborers these small things, buys them more and more toleration 

of the way that they can exploit the wage-laborer. The working conditions become more 

tolerable. The wage-laborer will tolerate this treatment just as long as they are getting this 

slightly better treatment. And Marx uses the golden chain as a connection between the capitalist 

and the worker. “The chain becomes heavier only to preserve and maintain the means 

of production as capital. The worker is still a slave only with slightly better treatment. This 

situation is conditional on the capitalist’s ability to transform his surplus product into additional 

capital.” I believe that the main connection of the chain is that the worker will always 

be chained or “linked” to the capitalist forever, no matter how things might seem to change.


Hans: Your second quote is not from Marx but from [1997ut:381]. You took it over with its original misformulation; 

it should of course be the capitalist’s ability, not the worker’s ability. (I corrected this in the archives.) 

This mis-attribution of a quote lifted from the archives to Marx displeases me. 

You are saying good things in your answer, but they are getting buried because you are piling different thoughts 

on top of each other. It would have been better to decide which thought is most pertinent for the answer, and to 

present it in a more organized way. 

Message [1582] referenced by [1588] and [1589]. Next Message by Mason is [1625]. 

[1588] Dandy: Golden chain. I agree with Mason’s definition of the golden chain in 

submission [1582]. Although he refers to the golden chain being connected to low wages. 

It is not necessarily low wages but the cycle of dependence that increases with increased 

wages. 

The golden chain refers to the conditions of accumulation that happens to the laborer. A 

rise in the price of labor, instead of putting him ahead in the capitalist system only makes 

him more dependent. There is a form of exploitation that exists in the golden chain because a 

larger part of his surplus wage ends up going for increased consumption to satisfy his wants. 

The worker feels that with increased purchasing power he is getting ahead, but Marx says 

that the golden chain is only loosened somewhat. In reality the chain has become heavier 

because the laborer has become more dependent on the capitalist’s wage. 

Hans: Yes, they think they are gaining freedom, but in reality the chain that binds them is only extended a bit, their 

subordination to a hostile system has not ceased. 

Message [1588] referenced by [1589] and [1594]. Next Message by Dandy is [1622]. 

[1589] Surferboy: golden chain. I agree with both Mason [1582] and Dandy [1588]. 

Also, I think that capitalists also exploit their employees by giving them incentives such as 

discounts. I have a friend that works at a high-end clothing store. He makes minimum wage 

which is $5.15 an hour. On top of that the company requires him to wear all their own attire 

which is very expensive. The company gives them a 20 percent discount. At the end of an 

8 hour shift though my friend has not made enough to even buy a shirt. The capitalist here 

has created a stronger dependency since the labor needs to work to earn a wage, but also the 

capitalist is forcing the laborer to buy his product. 

Hans: The minimum wage cannot be considered a golden chain, it is more like a short leash. The requirement to 

buy such expensive clothes with this wage is like a sign that says: “if you have a family to support, don’t apply.” 

This incentive structure selects young people for whom clothes are very important, exactly the kind of people they 

want to see as sales personnel in their stores. It is a demeaning kind of profiling which traps people by their little 

vanities. 


[1594] Ash: graded A– [1588] and [1589] are correct to an extent. Marx talks about the 

Laborer “creating” the golden chain for himself. By subjecting himself to the capitalist the 

laborer has made himself a slave to the chain, it is not the capitalist that did it. Furthermore, 

as the laborer gets a raise, instead of continuing to live at the same level, he increases his 

standard of living, thus he is ultimately responsible for the weight added to his self-made 

“golden chain.” The more the laborer plays by the rules of the capitalist the greater the pit 

the Laborer digs for himself. 

Hans: Good question: why does Marx say that the worker is the one who forged this chain? But your answer 

sounds as if consumption itself was a sign of weakness. What is wrong with capitalism is not consumerism, but 

the mis-direction of production because the producers themselves have no say in it. There is nothing inherently 

wrong with a worker consuming at the highest standard of living their wages allows. Of course it would be better 

for everyone if they spent all their free time and extra resources to organize against the system. But they are too 


comfortable for that. The heavy but loose chain symbolizes the fact that they feel somewhat comfortable in a system 

that imprisons them, thus taking away any hope to break out of this prison. 



2003fa, 676 in 2004fa, 718 in 2007fa, 785 in 2009fa, 854 in 2010fa, 883 in 2011fa, and 

917 in 2012fa: 

Question 622 Does it make sense for the working class to fight for higher wages if the 

capitalist, for economic reasons, usually maintains the upper hand in such conflicts? 

[1554] Mullin: Higher Wages. Whether or not it makes sense to fight for higher wages 

seems to be second to whether or not it it an effective battle to pursue. Capitalists, though 

few do, should be able to comprehend that employees also have the same desire to make the 

greatest amount of money for their labor. As this is the case I would argue that it doesn’t 

make sense to fight the battle of higher wages with the capitalist who ultimately holds veto 

power. Reflect back to your teenage years; did you fight until you were blue in the face to 

have your curfew raised or ultimately decide it wasn’t worthwhile and instead decided there 

were other fights to take on? 

The market tends to run rapidly away from awarding employees with higher wages without 

many years of proven results. This is understandable as the higher wages would drain 

the amount of surplus-value which in turn reduces the profits realized by the capitalists. It 

instead would seem relevant that an argument based upon receiving commission in addition 

to wages would be the argument that would end in higher compensation, as the capitalist 

would only pay a portion of the profit realized rather than paying a higher wage hoping 

for higher production in return. When you feel as though you “deserve” higher wages you 

should take an inventory of your production and determine if the battle that should be fought 

is a direct compensation of the bottom line that your results contribute. 

Hans: Marxist workers would argue differently: they know that they are contributing to the bottom line, because all 

profits come from their unpaid labor. The only reason they cannot get it is because the capitalists have monopolized 

the means of production. The individual worker is powerless in such a situation, but if the workers organize, they 

can indeed force the capitalists to pay higher wages and content themselves with lower profits. 

Message [1554] referenced by [2009fa:1144]. Next Message by Mullin is [1555]. 



in 2010fa, and 932 in 2012fa: 

Question 636 Why can the soil of production of commodities bring forth large-scale production 

only in capitalist form? 

[1703] DarkKnight: graded B+ I soiled my production. The soil in capitalism that 

allows large-scale production to grow is private ownership of means of production. The 

individuals who don’t own the means of production must sell their labor and skills to the 

capitalist who does own the means of production. The capitalist can then take the surplus 

value generated by his employees and accumulate more and more capital. He is able to 

organize his production in the most efficient manner and engage in large-scale production.


Hans: Originally your first sentence ended with the words: “private property ownership.” I changed it into “private 

ownership of means of production”; but what you really need for your argument is its evil twin, namely, the 

exclusion of most workers from the ownership of their means of production. 

You are explaining how capitalism leads to large-scale production. [1754] and [1775] are apparently inspired by 

your answer since they are explaining the same thing. The question itself is a little different: it asks why capitalism 

is the only way to have large-scale production in a commodity-producing economy. 


[1754] Matt: In the capitalist form the soil of production of commodities is that private 

persons either produce commodities independently for the market or sell their labor-power 

on the market, since they do not have the means to produce independently. With the influx of 

more private persons into the marketplace the capitalists can find efficient ways of producing 

commodities creating more capital for themselves. Large scale production comes forth from 

this because each capitalist is working for personal gain but at the same time giving private 

persons the capability to produce wages for themselves, and with that enabling them to work 

together ultimately to produce more and gain more. 

Hans: By “influx of new persons into the markeplace” you apparently mean the influx of new proletarians, i.e., 

persons who are deprived from their means of production. All of chapter Twenty-five explained how this “influx” 

is orchestrated by capital itself. 

In the light of this, the capitalist is no longer someone who, as you say, creates wealth for everyone through his 

drive for personal gain, but someone whose drive for personal gain can only come to fruition because the workers 

are deprived of what is rightfully theirs. 

Nevertheless I agree with you that co-operation and the development of productivity coming with it is a beneficial 

by-product of this exploitation. 

Message [1754] referenced by [1703] and [1775]. Next Message by Matt is [1899]. 

[1775] Will: content C– form 80% The means to produce is the inherent property of 

the people who produce. A Laborer therefore produces in isolation and independently for 

the market, or he sells his labor-power on the market because he lacks the means to produce 

independently. This idea inherently works on a large scale and can only come about 

by individual capitals whose social means can be transformed into the private property of 

capitalists. 

Hans: If you mean with your first sentence that the people who produce “should” have property or some kind of 

control over their means of production, I wholeheartedly agree. But it has little to do with the question. 

Your second sentence says the same as the first sentence in [1754]. 

I cannot make any sense of your third sentence; I cannot even guess what you mean. 

Will: What I meant by the last sentence was that an individual capitalist by his own accord and social standings 

has the means to produce through the labor power he has bought and therefore creates for himself; which in turn 

is creating in the capitalist form. I guess I just get too indepth in the reading and my wording becomes confused 

when it came out. So I guess a better answer for the question would be that the work that the laborers put forth to 

create and produce will more often than not benefit the capitalist instead of the laborer and therefore can only be 

benefited from in a large scale. The reason this can only happen on a large scale is because the capitalist is the one 

who controls all the production which in turn makes him the person to benefit from it. 

Hans: The reason why the capitalist benefits from production and the worker doesn’t (according to Marx) is explained 

in chapter Six. In everytying you write I still can’t find an answer to the question why on the basis of 

commodity production large-scale production can only occur in capitalist form. 

In principle, large scale production does not have to be capitalist. The workers could own the means of production 

collectively, or independent producers could network with each other and co-ordinate their co-operation, 

or it could be part of a planned economy in which the means of production belong to the people as a whole. The 

question is: why does a market prevent any of those other than the capitalist form of (forced) co-operation. See my 

[1831] about this. 



[1782] Gutter: content A– form 90% The property of private persons is a means of 

production to any individual that has been given the right to possess and use it for any form 

of capitalist production. The reason that it can be done in large-scale only in capitalist 

form is that it provides more than one way to accumulate capitals. This “soil” benefits 

the capitalist, or “artisan”, by providing a space in which they can create their capitals by 

building plants and work spaces used to exploit the labors of workers for a wage which will 

allow the capitalist to accumulate as much monetary compensations as he / she can. Another 

way that “soil” can take on the capitalist form is that if an individual “lacks the means to 

produce independently” the property still yields an appreciation value at which can be turned 

for additional accumulative compensation by selling the “labor-power on the market.” 

Hans: Your argument seems to be: large scale production needs leaders and followers, and the two ways how 

people can earn their livelihood in commodity production determine who will be the leaders and who the followers. 

But I am only guessing here; you are not explaining yourself very clearly. Especially your first sentence cannot be 

deciphered. 


[1831] Hans: Commodity Obstacles to Cooperation. When reading MarxSchmarx’s 

essay [1777] about the advantages of co-operation even among real-estate agents, I was 

wondering why there isn’t a fourth option, in which several licensed agents form a partnership 

with a shared office. Then each can keep their full commission, the overhead costs of 

the office is somehow shared and will definitely be lower than if they went into business by 

themselves, and they would benefit from their co-operation as MarxSchmarx explained. 

Perhaps such partnerships exist, but I assume they are not very common, since MarxSchmarx 

didn’t mention it as an option. I don’t know much about this business, therefore I am just 

guessing now. Why not? Presumably the individual broker, who just has acquired his license, 

would say: 

Why should I bother to enter a partnership with others? Each customer 

needs only one agent to show them around. It will be as difficult as herding 

cats to get agreement among independent brokers. Co-operation does not 

make sense for us. It does no financial good for any one of us to share ideas 

or to discuss the best way to handle issues. 

(This last sentence was a literal quote from [1777].) Therefore, the only way to get 

those self-employed competing agents to work together is that they must enter a wage-laborlike 

agreement with some “ultimate” capitalist. And then, to their surprise, they discover 

afterwards that they benefit from their own caramaderie and co-operation. 

I think here we see the principle in action which Marx formulated with the words “The 

soil of commodity production can bring forth production on a large scale only in capitalist 

form.” Market competition motivates us to develop our individual skills, but it separates us 

from our peers, it builds an invisible wall around us. The only way to shatter this wall is to 

shatter us, to reduce us to wage-laborers who have to work for someone else. We will not 

voluntarily co-operate in any other way. 

Is this true or not? I re-opened question 636. It is one of the questions assigned between 

now and Friday morning, December 9 at 3 am. You must bring either examples or 

counterexamples from modern life. An example would be a situation where co-operation


is prevented by the “invisible wall” which the market builds around us. A counterexample 

would be a situation where individual independent market participants co-operate with each 

other directly, not through the mediation of a capitalist hiring them all. 

Other questions in this last assignment of the Semester are questions 84 (Annotations p. 

39) and 111 (Annotations p. 58). More questions will be announced. Note that term paper 

discussions and late term papers will not be accepted after 3 am Monday, December 4. 


[1849] Aaron: An example for the “invisible-wall” is in all media sales and marketing 

campaigns. Competing marketing agencies act independent of each other in the market 

however they are all tied together by clients within the market which has a finite determined 

dollar amount available. Each agencies is obviously in competition to win the maximum 

piece of the pie possible. It is a cut-throat industry filled with mistrust and the absence of 

due diligence. Most media campaign accounts are fought over and if the competing agencies 

would combine for that client or account using their individual strengths then both agencies 

would produce better results for the client resulting in increased revenues for the firm and 

increasing the economic productivity in the market and thus increasing that finite amount 

available in the market. 

Hans: Your answer raises an interesting question: collusion between the suppliers in a market is a form of cooperation, 

but in capitalism it is illegal (anti-trust laws). Marx himself thought that monopolies facilitate the transition 

to socialism because the workers simply have to take over the command of the monopoly and direct it to act in 

society’s best interest. Does this mean modern progressives should be opposed to anti-trust laws? 

In the example you chose, advertising, the case can probably be made that co-operation between suppliers is 

not a good thing. Advertisement is not a zero-sum game: if your competitors advertise a lot, you have to advertise 

a lot too. If the firms producing and selling the advertisement materials were allowed to collude, then they would 

probably increase their business beyond the point at which the additional information is useful. 

Information about the products available is important in any kind of society. Rationally, producers and consumers 

should work together to provide it. The market system bars from the beginning such a rational solution. 

By the way, this message was originally sent to the free discussion list. Since homework questions are not 

allowed on the free discussion list, I moved your submission into the homework archives as an ungraded submission. 

Therefore you still need to make another submission to the free discussion list to satisfy your deadline requirement. 


[1915] MarxSchmarx: graded A Individual Independent Market Co-operation. I am 

sorry to keep bringing in real estate examples, but it is what I know. An example of individual 

independent market participants co-operating without the mediation of a capitalist would be 

different builders selling new homes in the same new subdivision. 

Often there will be six or seven different homebuilders that coexist within the subdivision. 

They all have the same goal to sell all of the houses that they build, as well as the common 

goal of receiving the highest price for those houses. They are at the mercy of the codes, 

covenants, and restrictions that the local government places on the particular subdivision, 

but there is no capitalistic mediation. This could be viewed as government regulation of the 

commodities that other industries experience. No one is telling the builders exactly what to 

build, what specific color of stucco to use, or which size of windows must be used. 

Despite this, these independent builders co-operate by keeping up a particular standard of 

quality. In order to sell their commodities, everyone needs to make sure that the subdivision 

as a whole is appealing to home buyers. With the common goal of selling their goods at the 


highest price, there is incentive for the individual market participants to co-operate with each 

other to promote a certain level of quality, as well as building at a price-level that is consistent 

with each other. This does not mean that the competing builders cannot differentiate their 

products from each other. If anything, it promotes the subtle differentiation of their homes 

so they can build a unique product and allow the consumer a wide array of choices. 

Hans: Co-operation is necessary to build a pleasant neighborhood, and you show that this co-operation is forthcoming 

despite the market. A similar co-operation is also necessary to achieve the striking segregation of our living 

neighborhoods by class and race. Co-operation does not always have socially desirable aims. 

First Message by MarxSchmarx is [500]. 

[1920] Bosox: The property of private persons is a means of production to any individual 

that has been given the right to possess and use it for any form of capitalist production. 

The reason that it can be done in large-scale only in capitalist form is that it provides more 

than one way to accumulate capitals. This “soil” benefits the capitalist by providing a space 

in which they can create their capitals by building plants and work spaces used to exploit 

the labors of workers for a wage which will allow the capitalist to accumulate as much 

monetary compensations as they can. Another way that “soil” can take on the capitalist form 

is that if an individual “lacks the means to produce independently” the property still yields 

an appreciation value at which can be turned for additional accumulative compensation by 

selling the “labor-power on the market.” 

Hans: This is an almost literal copy of [1782]. Sorry, this is plagiarism and I will not tolerate it. 

Final Grading Note by Hans: You missed all deadlines for homeworks; your first regular homework was received 

after the second exam. You did not participate in the general discussion at all. The content of your messages does 

not convince me that you made up for your non-participation by carefully studying the text at home. 

Message [1920] referenced by [2004fa:369]. First Message by Bosox is [586]. 

[1931] Gdubmoe: content B– form 90% The soil of production of commodities can bring 

forth large-scale production only in capitalist form because capitalists create productive powers 

of labor and accumulation to carry out production on a large scales. Capitalists must have 

growth and profits to succeed, they use a co-operation between human capital labor and instruments 

of labor (machinery) to produce as many commodities as they can simultaneously. 

The “technological application of scientific knowledge” is a cheaper means of production to 

produce more and from this capitalists accumulate more capital and profits. But before they 

can invest in the machinery capitalists must attain profits to purchase the capital of machinery. 

They need to develop higher productive powers of labor to increase surplus-value so the 

accumulation can begin. Once this is done and the technology of machinery is in place then 

the “snowball effect” of accumulation occurs. Capitalists rely heavily on human capital but 

if machinery is created to produce more, provide cheaper labor, and work longer hours then 

human capital becomes less valuable. Capitalists create a co-operation between machines 

and humans for the cheapest, most efficient mode of production. 

Hans: I re-opened this question in [1831] with the requirement that you must bring examples from today. Everyone 

who ignores this gets 10 percent off their grade. Besides, my second remark to [1703] also applies to you. 

In the beginning, capitalist firms used exactly the same technology than the handicraft trades from which they 

arose; the difference was originally only a quantitative one of having more workers assembled in the same location. 

A Marxist would find it interesting that you describe the capitalist production process as a co-operation between 

laborer and machine rather than the use of the machinery by the laborer. 

Message [1931] referenced by [1942]. First Message by Gdubmoe is [241]. 

[1936] MrPink: graded A In [1831] Hans asks for “examples from modern life”...


The freelance photography industry is based on talent and the ability to sell that talent. 

In 1992 fotoQuote began what is now the standard for photo pricing and developed a software 

package that is almost exclusively used. In doing this they single-handedly took the 

ultimate power of price setting away from the capitalists (for simplicity, lets say a magazine). 

FotoQuote collects sales records over a period of time and generate a pricing grid 

which is updated annually. They could have only achieved this with the co-operation of the 

“individual independent market participants”, the photographers. 

There are a few aspects of this business I would like to explore: 

What is the impact on individual prices? Before fotoQuoto photos were sold at what 

price the magazine set. Once fotoQuote created the guideline of how to value photographs 

prices began to rise. Now, there is also more of an opportunity for photos to be overvalued. 

I think this would enable the photographers to produce more photographs for sale because 

their means would increase and supposedly the software would make them more efficient at 

selling. 

Who is the capitalist? The magazine is always in a capitalistic position. The photographers 

have the means to produce photos but they do not have the means to publish the 

photos, thus they do not have the full means of production. Now, with the participation of 

fotoQuote the photographer could be seen as more powerful in demanding ‘higher wages’, 

however they still remain in the ‘worker’ role. Finally, fotoQuote is the most entrepreneurial 

(or parasitic depending on your view) because they make about $150 per software package 

(upgrades cost about $60) for a standard they initiated. 

Is fotoQuote a monopoly or union or neither? In my opinion this is the most interesting 

question and the most debatable. I think the magazine would call this monopolistic however 

the photographers would call it a modern version of unionization. My opinion, this is monopolistic 

but the business plan is executed in a manner to protect freelance photographers. 

Reference: 

http://www.fotoquote.com 

First Message by MrPink is [439]. 

[1942] Synergy: content C– form 90% As the annotations suggest, this question refers to 

a business cycle of the capitalist and the social production powers of cooperation. The cycle 

is started by an accumulation. This is not an accumulation of the capitalist however. Once 

this accumulation has taken place an increase in productivity (higher productive powers of 

labor) occurs which leads to an increase in surplus value leading to faster accumulation. 

This has been stated in terms of the average Joe and his inability to accumulate because of 

his lack of resources. He definitely has the skill but does not have the capital to start his 

own production. He therefore goes to work for the capitalist and then trades his expertise 

for the wage that the capitalists pays him. Because of the capitalist’s resources he is able 

to accumulate the skills of many. Production increases, accumulation accelerates, and the 

process snowballs. 

Hans: Please read my comments to [1931]. 

Final Grading Note by Hans: You and Camhol obviously worked together; you submitted your answers almost 

simultaneously and often answered the same questions. Nevertheless, each of you has a unique style and I have 


the impression that you did not copy from each other. My congratulations for such a successful and principled 

cooperation. 

First Message by Synergy is [256]. 

[1943] Camhol: All individuals have a varying rate of production capability. Some people 

can produce more than others, but even one individual cannot produce enough to constitute 

“large-scale” production. By taking his accumulation and using the exploitation of other 

producers can an individual increase his individual production level to “large-scale.” Once 

this exploitation happens, the individual has become a capitalist. The exploitations then 

worsen as the capitalist continues to increase his accumulation and he has the ability to 

further progress his “large-scale” capability. This “large-scale” capability only happened 

because of the exploitation of other producers which answers why the soil of production of 

commodities bring forth large-scale production only in capitalist form. 

Hans: You make it sound as if the ability to exploit others was an individual skill. The ability of those who control 

large amounts of money or material resources to exploit the workers requires a very particular social structure, in 

which the workers generally are separated from the means of production. 

Final Grading Note by Hans: You have original and interesting thoughts. 

First Message by Camhol is [252]. 


2003fa, 691 in 2004fa, 766 in 2007SP, 802 in 2009fa, 871 in 2010fa, 904 in 2011fa, and 

934 in 2012fa: 

Question 638 Accumulation increases productive powers of labor and higher productive 

powers of labor increase accumulation. One might think that accumulation of capital and 

the productive powers of labor go together really well—or is there a hair in the soup? 

[1716] Bosox: Accumulation increases productive power. The accumulation of capital 

and productive powers actually do go together quite well. This will lead to increases in extra 

surplus-value and in turn will help to accelerate accumulation. The accumulation thus gained 

will help spark an increase in technical progress which in turn will lead to higher productive 

powers of labor. This is actually a continous cycle. One possible “hair in the soup” problem 

could be that this technical progress could cause machines to replace workers. Eventually 

this could cause a decrease of wages for workers. 

Hans: A decrease in the wages of the workers is bad for the workers, but this does not necessarily disturb the 

chummy relationship between capital accumulation and technical progress. But if you go one step further and say 

that these lower wages make it impossible for capital to sell its output, then you have a case, because then you have 

found an implication of technical progress which is bad for capital. Some Marxists, following Henryk Grossmann, 

argue indeed that in the long run capital accumulation is incompatible with technical progress for this reason, others 

disagree. But there is a different hair which is in Marx’s own theory and agreed upon by most Marxists. If you put 

[2003fa:665] together with [1387] you will see which hair I mean. 


[1786] Camhol: Accumulation of capital and the productive powers of labor do go togethor 

very well, except for the fact that the power of labor is being exploited. This exploitation 

is the hair in the soup. 

Hans: You couldn’t have accumulation without exploitation, you couldn’t even have capital without exploitation. 

You might as well say that capital is the hair in the soup of capital. 

Next Message by Camhol is [1943].




937 in 2012fa: 

Question 641 How do competition and credit help in the process of centralization? 

[1679] Daleman: graded B Competition and credit help in the process of centralization by 

shortening and speeding up the processes of production and combining them into a socially 

accepted large scale process. Marx refers to credit as invisible threads money resources, 

scattered over the surface of society (1211). The small threads play a big factor in competition 

which ultimately leads to the transformation to centralization. 

Competition and Centralization supply the social need and technical means for big undertakings 

that required centralization of capital. 

Hans: Please do it step by step one at a time. For instance, I would reformulate your first sentence as: Competition 

(not competition and credit) leads to more efficient production which requires larger scale often achieved by 

centralization. 


[1714] Xerho: graded B Competition and credit as power forces in centralization. Just 

as the need to find work draws the laborer to the market in which there is a need for labor, 

so too does capitalism draw in, like a magnet, the things in which it needs to operate, competition 

and credit. 

The forces of attraction that draw together competition and credit help greatly in the 

process of centralization. Many industries will be drawn to a certain area because of means 

of input like money (credit), market share, innovation, and resources all found in the same 

area benefiting those industries. 

The two also feed off each other. 25.2 in Annotations, in referring to credit reads, “...but 

it soon becomes a new and terrible weapon in the battle of competition and is finally transformed 

into an enormous social mechanism for the centralization of capitals”. 

Competition and credit help in centralization by drawing in capital, and feeding off each 

other to further draw in capital. 

Hans: This is powerful figurative language, but you do not sufficiently explain the mechanisms driving it all. It is 

like a vivid description of a tornado which still leaves the listener in the dark how tornados work. 


[1722] Bosox: Competition and Credit. Competition helps in the process of centralization 

by eliminating the smaller and weaker businesses. The local market going up against 

mighty Walmart won’t last long. The Walmarts of today will gobble the little ones up and 

become a little stronger. Credit helps centralization by boosting companies’ incomes without 

expending any resources. With the extra capital that is gained they are able to increase 

their production which continues to aid them in ridding the competition and helping create 

centralization and expansion. 

Hans: How does credit boost a company’s income? A loan is not considered income; if this is what you mean then 

just say that credit makes capital available for expansion. 

Message [1722] referenced by [1744]. Next Message by Bosox is [1920]. 

[1744] Nazgul: graded A Time’s carcass. Marx stated “We should not say that one 

man’s hour is worth another man’s hour, but rather that one man during an hour is worth 


just as much as another man during an hour. Time is everything, man is nothing: he is at 

the most time’s carcass.” This statement is realized further in the drive of competition and 

credit towards centralization. In Daleman’s [1679] post he sums up greatly “competition and 

credit help in the process of centralization by shortening and speeding up the processes of 

production and combining them into a socially accepted large scale process”. 

Competition drives individuals to make more money than that which they started with. 

This drive necessitates the need to produce goods at a price lower than the standard socially 

necessary labor time. Competition “compels him to keep constantly extending his capital, 

in order to preserve it...” Credit in turn provides the funds needed by the capitalist to invest 

in production. 

The centralization of capital as pointed out by Bosox in [1722] hinders the smaller proprietors 

just as Wal-Mart has done. Ultimately through competition and credit the centralization 

of capital comes about creating with it great wealth and poverty because man is seen at most 

as time’s carcass to further the capitalist needs. 

Hans: A summary with an interesting twist. 




909 in 2011fa: 

Question 642 What is the centralization of capital? Show how accumulation leads to centralization. 

Which effects of accumulation are enhanced by centralization? 

[1743] MrPink: graded B Centralization is the merging of capital by two separate entities. 

The capitalist believes that they can increase their value through accumulation. This can 

be beneficial from the capitalist’s point of view because it can create greater cost savings, 

business diversification, and takes advantage of synergies. The capitalist can achieve this 

method of growth faster through centralization. 

This happens often in the financial industry (including insurance firms, investment firms, 

and retail/commercial banks). For example, in 2000 Chase Manhattan merged with JP Morgan 

to form JP Morgan Chase. Then in 2004 they merged with Bank One. 

Bank mergers can offer consumers larger product offerings and lessen the potential risk of 

bankruptcy. However they can also create higher bank fees, less services offered to smaller 

clients, and lessens choice/competition. 

This can impact workers as well. If the two banks have the same regional client base 

this can lead to downsizing of branches or if they have the same product line it can lead to 

a reduction of operational staff. However if the merger broadens the product line and the 

regional client base the workers could seize opportunities to increase skill levels, specialize, 

or move. 

Hans: Apparently you are using the word “accumulation” in the first sentence not in the way Marx uses it, but you 

mean an increase in firm size. Please see my [1848]. 

Message [1743] referenced by [1750] and [1787]. Next Message by MrPink is [1759]. 

[1750] Tink: graded B– As Mr. Pink described in [1743], centralization is the merging 

of capital. But it is not limited to two separate entities. This is what many commonly think


of when they think of a merger, but multiple capitalist entities could merge together and 

centralize. Marx himself describes the centralization of the railways, which was not simply 

two companies, but many. 

Accumlation leads to centralization because centralization is the simplest way to achieve 

accumulation. The definition of accumlation is the adding of surplus-value to already existing 

capital. Because so many individual capitals exist today, accumulation is most efficiently 

achieved by the merging of capitals through centralization, rather than the lengthy and gradual 

process of increasing surplus value within one individual capital entity. 

The effects of accumulation which are enhanced by centralization are those achieving a 

massive increase of surplus value to already existing capital. 

Hans: You give the correct definition of accumulation, but according to this definition, centralization is not a kind 

of accumulation. The capital added to the firm by centralization is not newly-created surplus-value but it is capital 

which formerly existed independently in different firms 

Message [1750] referenced by [2007SP:1366]. Next Message by Tink is [1811]. 

[1787] Synergy: graded B The centralization of capital occurs with mergers of corporations, 

or the globalization of a corporation. They will buy up smaller firms or incorporate 

smaller firms to work for them to provide a centralization of service or product. When the 

resources of that smaller firm are joined with the larger corporation then they are able to use 

those resources to gain capital. 

The accumulation of capital comes from the need to keep running a business. Technology 

or methods of production eventually need to be replaced or renewed. This can be done 

through the accumulation of better or more efficient technology. It can also be done by using 

the resources of an existing firm. Because of the nature of competition, these accumulations 

are spread throughout firms and the need becomes greater for accumulation. The Annotations 

mention that these accumulations become qualitative in this regard but the nature of 

them is to be quantitative, so the competition forces a change from quantity to quality. 

Hans: It seems you adopted MrPink’s wrong definition of accumulation in [1743]. But your answer has some hints 

of the mechanism by which accumulation leads to centralization. 


[1848] Hans: Accumulation and centralization. The process which was called “centralization 

of capital” by Marx is today called “mergers and acquisitions.” But in order to answer 

this question properly you also need to know the definition of accumulation (in Marx’s terminology): 

it is the re-conversion of surplus-value into capital. 

Both accumulation and centralization make individual firms bigger. But accumulation 

makes them bigger gradually, over the years, while centralization can multiply their size at 

one stroke. Bigger firms lead to economies of scale etc. These are the effects of accumulation 

which are enhanced by centralization. 

How does accumulation lead to centralization? Directly, accumulation only leads to more 

firms or gradually growing firms. But this triggers two mechanisms, competition and credit, 

which result in centralization. The gradual growth of firms can lead to competitive struggles 

in which one firm swallows its competitors. The credit system is like a big vacuum 

cleaner which picks up small capital accumulations at many different places and makes 


them available in centralized form. Another instrument for centralization which was very 

new in Marx’s time is the “joint stock companies.” 

Message [1848] referenced by [1743] and [2007SP:1391]. Next Message by Hans is [1878]. 

Question 646 is 417 in 1997sp, 774 in 2007SP, 743 in 2007fa, 778 in 2008fa, 880 in 


Question 646 Does the surplus-population arise from capital’s inability to keep pace with 

the growth of the population? 

[1830] Danske: As Marx points out in this section, no it is not because of an “inability” 

of capital to keep pace with growth of the population, but rather the ability of the system 

to use the surplus value of labor to create capital that is even less dependent on labor for 

production. Part of this takes place in the need for more unskilled labor while producing 

the same commodities. This pushes more workers out to general areas while reducing the 

organic composition of capital. Workers then become more dependent on the capital to 

produce and use their labor input. This gives labor a diminishing role in producing and 

contributes to even greater removal in the next cycle. This process is not though because 

capital can’t keep up but rather that capitalists use this to deny workers hope of gaining any 

personal control of production. 

Hans: The reduction of the skills of the laborers is usually a consequence of mechanization, i.e., an increase of the 

organic composition of capital rather than a decrease. 


[1845] Tomek: Danske writes, “It is not because of an ‘inability’ of capital to keep pace 

with growth of the population, but rather the ability of the system to use the surplus value 

of labor to create capital that is even less dependent on labor for production.” I agree with 

this statement. The production of labor survives on the ability of the surplus labor of value 

to form capital and not because the growth of the population exceeds the pace at which 

capital can rise. Danske writes, “part of this takes place in the need for more unskilled 

labor while producing the same commodities. This pushes more workers out to general 

areas while reducing the organic composition of capital.” I agree with this statement as well. 

Unskilled labor needs to create the same commodities, however, this cannot be achieved 

without causing a rise in the departure of the work force which causes a reduction in not 

just the quality of capital but in its composition as well. Danske writes, “Workers then 

become more dependent on the capital to produce and use their labor input. This gives labor 

a diminishing role in producing and contributes to even greater removal in the next cycle.” 

I agree with this statement because labor input caused by the workers is responsible for 

the capital that is produced. This forces the role of labor to be reduced and allows for the 

contribution of an even smaller amount of labor to be used through the next cycles. 

Hans: What do you mean by: 

The production of labor survives on the ability of the surplus labor of value to form capital 

and not because the growth of the population exceeds the pace at which capital can rise. 

What is here production of labor? Maybe employment of the laborer? And by surplus labor of value do you by any 

chance mean the surplus-value created by the laborer? Even if your answer to both of these questions is “yes”, this 

sentence still does not parse right. 

I also have troubles with the following passage:


Unskilled labor needs to create the same commodities, however, this cannot be achieved without 

causing a rise in the departure of the work force which causes a reduction in not just the 

quality of capital but in its composition as well. 

How does the de-skilling of labor cause a departure in the work force? You are leaving out some important intermediate 

links. And fewer workers mean a higher organic composition rather than a lower one. 

And regarding the passage: 

labor input caused by the workers is responsible for the capital that is produced. This forces 

the role of labor to be reduced and allows for the contribution of an even smaller amount of 

labor to be used through the next cycles. 

If labor is responsible for the capital that is produced, how does this reduce the role of labor instead of increasing 

it? 

First Message by Tomek is [753]. 

[1867] Parmenio: graded A– No the surplus-population does not arise from capital’s 

inability to keep pace with the growth of the population. The surplus population rises for 

four main reasons Hans notes on page 514 in the annotations; 

(1) Increase in centralization leads to increase in the scale of production and technical 

progress. This can go on even if capital itself does not grow. 

(2) Technical innovation in new capitals also forces the old capitals to introduce the new 

technology. 

(3) Organic composition increases in more industries 

(4) Intermediate pauses become shorter. 

Or as technology increases less and less direct labor is needed to produce a given product, 

which in turn produces a surplus-population. This process doesn’t stop, but continues to 

dilute the amount of labor needed in a given industry. 

Hans: How could this be summarized in a statement at the same level of generality as “capital’s inability to keep 

up with the growth of the working-class”? Maybe say: “because capital managed to subordinate the growth of the 

working-class to its own needs.” 

Message [1867] referenced by [2007SP:1395] and [2010fa:1140]. Next Message by Parmenio is [1873]. 



Question 647 Why does the rise in the organic composition outpace the growth of capital? 

[1790] Karlwho: graded C Marx gives several reasons that causes the rise in organic 

composition to outpace the accumulation of capital. As production gets larger and larger so 

does technical progress even if there hasn’t been an increase in the total of capital. Advances 

in technology in new capital and technological advances in the already existing capital can 

decrease the total number of jobs. The time gaps that allow capital accumulation to occur 

with organic composition become smaller and smaller. As organic composition increases, it 

becomes widespread until virtually every industry is within its grip. Through technological 

advances, direct labor is not as critical as it once was, and the advances keep labor decreasing 

in the course of the accumulation of capital. 

Hans: There is a superficial resemblance between your points and the text in the Annotations on p. 514. But they 

are by far not the same. Your text seems to assume that technical progress not only decreases variable capital in 


proportion to the constant capital, but that it absolutely decreases, and even the total capital decreases. I don’t think 

this is a realistic assumption, and Marx did not make it. 




Question 648 What does capital need this surplus-population for? (How come it produces 

exactly what it needs?) 

[1796] ADHH: graded B+ Capitalism needs a large number of laborers to even exist. The 

expansion of capital generates an increased need for laborers. As technology advances, the 

demand for new laborers increases but at a decreasing rate. This decreased rate creates the 

surplus population. This surplus population allows the capitalists to “enforce its own valorization” 

(Iris in [1998WI:378]) and what they are willing to pay the laborers. According to 

Iris’s submission “the capitalists have this surplus population to fall back on when a worker 

protests for the compensation he is getting.” The capitalists use this surplus population as 

a bargaining tool against the laborer’s request for increased compensation. If the laborer 

does not like the wage they are given, the capitalist can replace them with someone from the 

surplus population who is willing to work for that lower wage. 

Hans: Instead of saying “this decreased rate creates the surplus population” it would be more accurate to say: 

“This rate is decreased so much that a surplus-population is created.” 

You did not explain how it comes about that capital produces exactly what it needs. 

Message [1796] referenced by [1800] and [2007fa:692]. Next Message by ADHH is [1917]. 



Question 652 Which violent means did capital use in its infancy to sweep away the bounds 

imposed on its accumulation by the natural limits of the exploitable working population? 

[1834] Prairierose: The violent means Marx discusses is unemployment. Marx states, 

“this increase is effected by the simple process that constantly ‘sets free’ a part of the working 

class; by methods which lessen the number of workers employed in proportion to the 

increase production. Modern industry’s whole form of the motion therefore depends on 

the continuous transformation of a part of the working population into unemployed or semiunemployed 

‘hands’.” The capitalists utilization of unemployment is still apparent in today’s 

society. The workers who are still employed after the lay offs are now responsible for producing 

more. 

Hans: No, Marx is talking here about openly violent means in the infancy of capitalism, such as forcible extension 

of the working-day by law, or laws which forced the peasants dispossessed by the enclosure movement into wagelabor 

relations. 

Your answer is similar to [2003fa:701]. My response was that it could be considered correct only because at 

that time I had not yet added the phrase “in its infancy” to the text of the question. 

Message [1834] referenced by [2007fa:708] and [2007fa:710]. First Message by Prairierose is [135]. 



954 in 2012fa:


Question 657 Why does the capitalist have the motive to get the same labor-time out of a 

smaller number of workers? Which economic facts did Marx refer to, and which additional 

economic facts go in the same direction nowadays? 

[1840] Adamwest: 1 worker is better than 2? Capitalists will always prefer to have a 

smaller number of employees put in more labor-time, rather than have to hire more employees. 

The reasoning for this is simple, if more employees are hired then the company will 

require a higher amount of constant capital. More employees might require them to buy a 

larger warehouse for production, or more machines. In turn this benefits the workers too, the 

more hours the laborer works the higher the wage he will be paid. To me this easily relates 

to our current economy. The different companies that I have worked for would always prefer 

to get me to work longer hours, instead of going out and hiring another guy to do some of 

the workload. 

Ernesto: If this same firm however has 4 workers, it would be prudent to employ one additional worker to prevent 

the 4 workers from working 2 additional hours. Levels of productivity decrease when fatigue sets in. It would be 

advantageous to bring another worker on board. The question however, is if they have enough means of production 

to employ one additional worker? 

Hans: You only give Marx’s reasons, ignoring important additional reasons valid today. 

Final Grading Note by Hans: Few of the questions you chose during the Semester addressed the meat and bones 

of Marxian theory. 

Message [1840] referenced by [1843], [1851], and [1852]. Next Message by Adamwest is [1898]. 

[1843] Guerito: graded A Capitalists Prefer Fewer Workers. If a capitalist requires 400 

hours/week of labor-time he would prefer 10 laborers each working 40 hours/week compared 

to 20 laborers each working 20 hours/week. Adamwest [1840] states, “The reasoning for 

this is simple . . . more employees might require them to buy a larger warehouse for 

production, or machines.” Adamwest is correct, Marx is referring to higher costs such as 

buildings and machinery. But Adamwest’s answer is indeed simple and appears to have 

been written quickly. He has the right idea but could have benefited by providing examples 

of how this applies to us today. In addition to machinery, the first thing that comes to my 

mind in today’s society that increases costs to the capitalist is employee benefits: health and 

dental insurance, 401k plans, tuition reimbursement, etc. As these costs continue to increase 

at the rate they are today, the capitalist is motivated all the more to get more labor-time out 

of a smaller number of workers. In most cases, the worker is willing to work those extra 

hours because of the larger paycheck he then takes home, this in turn can also be seen as an 

additional benefit. 

Message [1843] referenced by [1852]. Next Message by Guerito is [1886]. 

[1851] Aaron: To add to Adamwest’s point in [1840], I think that firms would prefer to 

work current employees longer rather than hire additional workers to share the work load 

because of simple cost mathematics. If the firm currently employs 1 laborer for 5 dollars an 

hour and needs 8 hours of work completed it will cost $40. If the firm then needs the laborer 

to complete 10 hours of work then the cost will increase to $50. however if the firm seeks 

another worker to complete the additional 2 hours the firm will not only have to pay worker 

number $5 an hour but employ additional costs in taxes, training and opportunity costs lost 

from those expenses. 

Hans: Yes, taxes and training costs are also economized if you have fewer employees. For instance there is a 

per-employee cap on the payroll taxes. But you cannot add the opportunity costs, this would be double counting. 


Final Grading Note by Hans: Overall I see consistent work from you grappling with a difficult material. You 

don’t shy away from trying out unfamiliar ways of thinking. You are on the right track 


[1852] TimJim: Question 657, More Ideas on why 1 worker is better than 2. I agree 

also with both Adamwest [1840] and Guerito’s [1843] responses. I believe that a capitalist 

is always looking to get the least amount of employees to complete the job. Along with the 

other two ideas, I believe that the main reason is for the workers efficiency. If I owned a 

business (albeit a rather small business), I would want to hire the least amount of workers 

possible to still gain the maximum profit. I would want to do this for a few reasons: 

1. The first reason and underlying reason is simple, less people to share in the profits of 

the company. The less people to pay, the more money I get to shove in my pocket at the end 

of the day. 

2. As Guerito stated that hiring more employees will lead to “increases costs to the capitalist 

(as) employee benefits: health and dental insurance, 401k plans, tuition reimbursement, 

etc.” With the rising health care costs in America and the competing firms, it is tough to hire 

employees without all the added benefits and “perks.” 

3. It is easier to exploit less workers and to keep less workers from questioning the 

capitalist motives. This statement seems to be a bit sinister but let me explain. I was watching 

an investigative report of Walmart last week, my idea of the ideal capitalist, and they were 

discussing the wages and decreasing health care benefits that Walmart was offering their 

employees. One of the branches of Walmart in Canada started protesting heavily and formed 

a worker’s union. Walmart quickly closed the branch and laid off those employees. With less 

employees to monitor, it keeps the workers from complaining excessively. Less workers also 

allow the capitalist to monitor the employees easier with theft and other dishonest practices 

that come from disgruntled workers. 

4. Along with the previous reason, hiring fewer employees allows the capitalist to raise 

the wages a bit for the employees to make them happier and more willing to work. I am 

employed by a large corporation who pays me quite a bit more for my work than other 

employers would for the same type of work. I am also given great benefits. I feel like I am 

treated well at my work. With this type of treatment from my employer, I get in a bit of a 

comfort zone where I feel like if I go somewhere else I will lose on quite a bit. I know that 

my employer is exploiting me, but I feel like I cannot leave because I fear I won’t be able to 

find as good of job that I have now. My company can afford to treat me like this because of 

the limitations that they have on hiring people. 

According to the capitalist, the more workers that capitalist employs, the more troubles 

and worries that can arise from the situation. 


[1870] Ernesto: Reply to Adam West’s. Re: [1851]: If this same firm however has 4 

workers, it would be prudent to employ one additional worker to prevent the 4 workers from 

working 2 additional hours. Levels of productivity decrease when fatigue sets in. It would 

be advantageous to bring another worker on board. The question however, is if they have 

enough means of production to employ one additional worker? 

First Message by Ernesto is [255].


Question 664 is 440 in 1998WI, 635 in 2002fa, 718 in 2004fa, 793 in 2007SP, 797 in 


Question 664 Which actions should the workers undertake in order to break the despotism 

of capital? (Also indicate which aspect of the theory calls for which action.) 

[1835] Astclair: As soon as the workers discover the inequalities caused by capitalism, 

they must try to intervene through the creation of trade unions. Marx says that they do this 

because they realize that the more they work the productive powers of their labor increases, 

without being compensated for this extra production. The workers need to stop competing 

with themselves, and work together in order to secure a wage which is more fair than they 

would get under the “natural” supply and demand laws of capitalism. 

Hans: Marx does not believe that trade unions can override the law of value, see [1878]. But in the text of the 

accumulation chapter where this question is placed, Marx makes a very concrete suggestion what workers should 

do: namely, the employed and the unemployed should organize together. Why does Marx make this proposal? 

Final Grading Note by Hans: You are a good and critical thinker and I have the impression Marx’s arguments are 

not very convincing to you. Thank you for engaging with his theory anyway. 

Message [1835] referenced by [1878] and [2008fa:1286]. First Message by Astclair is [258]. 

[1858] PAE: response. I agree with what Astclair says about the action that needs to be 

taken is for workers to start trade unions. I think however you need to go one step further and 

have the trade unions strike or organize to find another way to stop production long enough 

to show the capitalist who really controls the labor. Just forming the unions is not enough, 

there needs to be an example of power so that they are taken seriously. There have even 

been examples of trade unions purchasing the company if it is publically traded company 

and assuming control of the board. The organization of the union is the first step but a sign 

of power and commitment needs to be shown in order to really change the capitalist system 

we have. 

Hans: You are right, unions by themselves cannot change the system, for this a strong labor movement is needed, 

and a political party. 

By the way, you cannot change the capitalist system by unions buying the occasional firm. Competition forces 

the union-owned firm to act like any other capitalist. It would be a different matter if the government, when bailing 

out the airline and auto industries, at the same time would nationalize these industries and would use this as a start 

for a planned economy. But, of course, the political will to do this is nonexistent. 

Message [1858] referenced by [1872], [1878], [2007SP:1390], and [2008fa:1223]. First Message by PAE is [125]. 

[1872] Pete: (graded A) In response to [1858]: Starting any union is very difficult. Nowadays 

most workers don’t think a union is the way to go. Their thinking is, “Just believe in the 

firm, they will always treat you justly.” Not. The only way a union can make any difference 

is if the majority of workers are in the union. Even then, as you saw in the strike against the 

airlines by Air Traffic Controllers during the 80’s, they all were fired and new ones brought 

in. There is no law that says a union shop cannot be fired. Now the company would be smart 

to negotiate a settlement but it doesn’t have to. The employees will strike and will stand out 

in the cold for a long time until someone says “Uncle”. 

Hans: The companies don’t want to negotiate with the unions, but in the 1930s the unions were so strong and could 

pull off so many labor struggles that laws were passed (Wagner Act) which forced the companies to recognize 

the unions. Today those labor laws are gutted again, the NLRB (National Labor Relations Board) is hopelessly 

underfunded and understaffed. 




2007SP, 803 in 2008fa, 906 in 2010fa, and 939 in 2011fa: 

Question 670 Which parts of the surplus population do these people belong to: A housewife 

looking for a job, someone employed part time (or with several part time jobs) looking for a 

full time job with benefits, high school graduates who don’t find jobs, someone unemployed 

actively looking for work, someone unemployed waiting until the unemployment compensation 

has run out, discouraged workers on welfare, someone who has a lower-paying job 

because her skills are outdated. 

[1844] MarxSchmarx: graded A Flowing, latent, and stagnant. The housewife who is 

looking for a job belongs to the latent surplus population. The capitalist does not know that 

she is looking for a job until a job that suits her arises. Latent in this sense also can mean 

hidden. 

I also believe that the high school graduate that doesn’t find a job is classified as latent 

surplus labor. This worker could also be classified as stagnant if the labor market does not 

provide a job for him because of inexperience or lack of knowledge. 

The unemployed laborer who is waiting until their unemployment benefits run out would 

also be classified as part of the latent population. They are not currently working, but will 

be working soon if a position come up that suits them. 

The worker who has a lower-paying job because their skills are out-dated belongs to the 

stagnant surplus population. These are people that the system classifies as stagnant because 

they aren’t going anywhere. In order for the worker with out-dated skills to get a new job, 

it would take an effort on their part to learn a new skill. They aren’t actively trying to better 

themselves, so they are stuck in the position that they hold. 

The discouraged worker on welfare should be classified as stagnant as well because he 

is not trying to be employed; he is just happy receiving his check and is not thinking about 

what to do instead of not working. It could also be that the worker is receiving welfare 

because they are disabled, or crippled. In this case, they would belong to the fourth form of 

surplus population, pauperism. 

The flowing surplus population includes the worker that is currently unemployed looking 

for work, as well as the person who is employed part time, but looking for a full time job 

with benefits. These workers are actively looking, willing, and able to work, but are just 

subject to the cyclical nature of finding a job. 


Question 672 is 472 in 1999SP, 643 in 2002fa, 726 in 2004fa, 801 in 2007SP, 800 in 


Question 672 What is pauperism? 

What is its relationship to the relative surplus population? 

Discuss contemporary forms of pauperism. 

Which political actions can one expect from paupers and why?


[1837] Picard: graded A According to the Random House Dictionary of the English 

Language Pauperism is “the state or condition of utter poverty”. Marx’s definition is that 

Pauperism is a form of the suplus population, “the infirmery of the active labor-army and 

the dead-weight of the industrial labor army”. They are those people who were injured on 

the job and cannot find work, children from poor families etc... Pauperism is related to the 

surplus population in that it is a “result of the existence of a surplus population”. In other 

words it exists because of the surplus population and is a form of it. In our modern times 

we still see paupers such as prostitutes and criminals just like Marx saw but I would add to 

the list poor women who must work as waitresses and as maids, jobs that barely pay enough 

to live day to day. We still see child labor especially in Asia where poor famillies send 

their young children to work because mom and dad cannot buy enough food. I would expect 

Paupers to not be involved in politics very much because they would be too preoccupied with 

survival to engage in political actions. Some political actions they might involve themselves 

in would be workers’ compensation, minimum wage, and human rights. 

Hans: Waitresses and maids are “working poor,” but unless they are homeless they do not fall under Marx’s definition 

of pauperism. Marx’s pauperism consists mainly of people who, due to their experiences in unemployment 

or due to injuries on the job, no longer are able to work. 

Message [1837] referenced by [2008SP:818] and [2010fa:1119]. Next Message by Picard is [1868]. 

[1855] Snickers: graded A Pauperism. Pauperism is not the direct result of the repulsion 

of labor by capital but the result of the result of this expulsion as Hans stated in the Annotations. 

So pauperism is a form of relative surplus population. This relative surplus population 

is seen by a capitalist as being not needed or fitting into their capalitist economy. The population 

that makes up this surplus population would be described as beggars, drug dealers, 

prostitutes, and criminals with felonies etc. A contemporary form of pauperism would be 

criminals and drug dealers. And that these criminals with felonies don’t give capitalists anything 

since most capitalist won’t hire felons. Drug dealers would be another example of a 

pauper since their labor is not being used by the capitalists and the hundreds of millions of 

dollars invested into drugs each year and not into the capitalist economy. Since paupers are 

the poorest of the poor, their political viewpoints would be that of democratic in the reason 

that democrats are believed to do more for people in poverty such as welfare and social 

security. 

Hans: Yes, drugs must play an important role in any modern discussion of pauperism and the lumpen-proletariat. 

It is necessary here to distinguish between drug dealers and drug addicts. Another important new form of pauperism 

is the homeless. 

Message [1855] referenced by [888]. First Message by Snickers is [244]. 

[1862] Manchu: Pauperism can be explained as someone in receipt of relief due to poor 

law, a person to be relieved under the poor law must be a destitute person, and the moment 

he has been relieved he becomes a pauper. Prevalent destitution is caused by relative surplus 

population which groups paupers into different forms. Contemporary forms of pauperism 

could be those hit by the hurricane Katrina and made paupers by the relief aid that was given 

them. Post Katrina a series of criminals evolved. These criminals were the “separate social 

layer” that is the result of pauperism that Marx speaks of. 

Because of paupers’ vulnerable state a backlash of revolution and protestation may result, 

unions formed, or work stoppage. 


Hans: It is true that Marx assumes that the statistics associated with the poor laws measure the kind of pauperism 

he defines, but he does not define pauperism through this statistic. Good observation about Katrina. 

Since these people are not able to hold a job, they neither have the discipline or the leverage necessary to make 

a revolution. 

Message [1862] referenced by [2008fa:1290]. First Message by Manchu is [335]. 




Question 673 What is worse: the misery of idle impoverishment or the torture of work? 

[1836] Tesa: graded A Whether the misery of the idle impoverishment or the torture of 

work is worse depends on the form the pauper fits into. The majority of us are ingrained with 

the idea that working hard all our lives is the appropriate way to exist, and so we endure the 

“torture of work” to avoid the “misery of idle impoverishment”. 

An example of that form of pauper that are able to work but are in limbo as they wait to 

re-enter active work, are the French people we have been hearing about in the news very recently. 

The unemployment problems have accumulated to breaking point and those suffering 

from the deficiency of job-availability acted out in protest to make their misery known. 

At the other end of the spectrum, those vagabonds, criminals, prostitutes, etc. (pg 545- 

546) are so removed from the “socially acceptable” behavior and culture of the mainstream 

working world, that their perspective initiates abstract ideas. Such as not wanting to conform 

to society by having checking accounts, a social security number, or a house, and especially 

not a job. For them, having a job is as distasteful as being unemployed would be for us. 

Hans: Very good approach. Instead of writing a philosophical treatise about this question you are looking for 

evidence indicationg how the people in these situation feel about it themselves. 

Message [1836] referenced by [1857], [2008fa:1293], [2009fa:1226], and [2011fa:1196]. First Message by Tesa is 

[108]. 

[1857] Robgodfell: graded A Impoverished Work of the Idle. I thought that when 

reading this question I was certain, like Tesa [1836] that the answer would be simple and 

straightforward. 

However, I am no longer convinced. 

Tesa [1836] states that “Whether the misery of the idle impoverishment or the torture of 

work is worse depends on the form the pauper fits into.” 

This is clearly suggests that if one exists in the pauper-ed class of the reserve industrial 

army which are “Paupers capable of working [annotations: 545:2 bullet-point 1]” then perhaps 

this degree of misery could be seen as at least equal to the torture of work. 

I categorically disagree. 

Any state of pauperism demands that one belongs to the relative-surplus population and 

is unemployed, partially employed on every third Sunday for Joe’s Strawberry Farm, or— 

as contained within the wonderful lingo of modern economics that the Bureau of Labor 

Statistics loves to use—discouraged workers.


What a convenient way to declare to the American public and the world that our unemployment 

rates are around 5.5%... 

That aside, I don’t understand how belonging to such a class of paupers could be deemed 

misery-neutral in comparison to a waged-job; regardless the level of exploitation. 

I’d rather eat in misery than starve in the same boat. 

I’m not saying that wage labor is the appropriate alternative; however, when juxtaposed 

against pauperism I know where I’d line up! And that is exactly what the capitalist knows 

about every laborer. 

Don’t bite the hand that feeds they remind us! 

How odd that it is actually the hand of the laborer which feeds and produces through the 

reproduction of capitalism, but attached are the invisible marionette strings of the capitalist 

puppeteer and we are trained to think that our hand is their hand! 

Tesa also states: “At the other end of the spectrum, those vagabonds, criminals, prostitutes, 

etc. (pg 545-546) are so removed from the ‘socially acceptable’ behavior and culture 

of the mainstream working world. . . [they don’t want] to conform to society by having checking 

accounts, a social security number, or a house, and especially not a job. For them, having 

a job is as distasteful as being unemployed would be for us.” 

I wished this made sense. 

Marry, sir, Tesa may have committed false report; for many of our definitions are capable 

of making people into criminals. 

In the prison population of the US, anywhere from 2/3rds to 3/4ths are there for drug 

crimes. 

Whereas the people who pander the most addictive and deadly substances known to man 

(nicotine and alcohol) wander our streets freely and even have been known to tell countries 

that the strain on their emerging health systems will be reduced when people start dying of 

lung cancer. See Poland and JR Reynolds. 

Secondarily, prostitution, I dare say (despite any “morality” issues) does in fact constitute 

employment; and may be one of the positions in life which actually come close to providing 

a wage representative of the labor embodied in it. 

For the prostitute does in fact own the means of production and probably sees her/himself 

as employed. 

Also, in developing countries such as Thailand, Sri Lanka, India etc, prostitution has been 

on the rise as a consequence to the increase in the industrial-reserve army as IMF macrostructural 

adjustment programs provide the necessary environment for capitally intensive 

factories (as a result of foreign laborers pushing technological composition skyward and the 

organic composition of capital skyward) which favor export zones of port and main cities; 

thereby forcing urbanization and an ever larger increase in the relative surplus population 

within them. See Diane Elson, University of Manchester. 


One of the only professions left to the idle impoverished women in these countries so that 

they may feed themselves is prostitution. And often at a better wage rate than many of the 

new manufacturing jobs available in the ever globalizing and manufacturing plants in search 

of cheaper and cheaper labor. 

Dare I say the woman doesn’t want a home and a better life for her children, or at least to 

eat another meal? 

Sixth and lastly, splitting hairs, I also don’t understand how we assume that because people 

operate in the black market that they don’t want a home, (a checking account I understand 

for fear of tracking identities), or have somehow erased their social security numbers and are 

no longer citizens. 

Thirdly, the torture of work, while possibly as abhorrent as the horridness paraded before 

us, still possesses the potential to provide for rising living standards: clean water, access to 

medical care, food, and shelter (even if this is contained within greater commodity consumption 

and the commodity veil associated therein, the fact still remains that at least I won’t die 

of Cholera, or Giardia). But this is still for those who exist within the variable labor equation; 

not those forced or “set-free” into the temporary reserves which conveniently makes 

room for new additions by the death of those poor souls already contained within it. 

And to conclude, the capitalists are lying knaves; even if they are blinded by the fetish 

like character of commodity production in the capitalist mode and can’t be expected to know 

any better. 

Torture of Work: exploitative destroyer of life. Misery of Idle Impoverishment: rapid 

destroyer of life. 

First Message by Robgodfell is [347]. 


2007SP, 773 in 2007fa, 803 in 2008SP, 808 in 2008fa, 841 in 2009fa, and 944 in 2011fa: 

Question 674 The only way the worker can improve his lot in society is to increase the 

productive powers of his labor. Right or wrong? 

[1794] BonzoIsGod: Productive Powers of Labor. This statement is completely false in 

a capitalist society. As the worker increases his productive power of labor, the demands on 

the worker become more, thus alienating the worker. Therefore, it is not possible to increase 

your social lot by increasing your productive powers of labor. “. . . the higher the productive 

powers of labor, the greater is the pressure of the workers on the means of employment, the 

more precarious therefore becomes the condition for their existence. . . ” [798:3]. 


[1799] Rudy: graded A Productivity Control. I think to say that a worker can improve 

his/her own lot in society gives too much control to the worker in that such a statment implies 

that a worker even has control his/her lot, which Marx establishes is not true. By lot I am 

referring to the ability of a worker to become something other than a worker, namely, a 

capitalist.


In essence, we see that not only do increased productive powers not improve the worker’s 

lot, but eventually worsen it, as the annotations read, “Instead of [improved productive powers] 

being a way out of the drudgery of labor, the higher productive powers are, under capitalism, 

turned against the laborer.” The increased productive powers can make it more difficult 

for the workers in the sale of their labor-power, making their own existence, as Marx puts it, 

“precarious” in the face of an increase in the self-valorization of capital [798:3]. 

Several participants in 2004fa claimed the only way for a worker to improve his lot is to 

become a capitalist. Hans in [2004fa:627] says Marx’s theory says capitalism “sees to it that 

wages are kept at exactly such a level that they permit the workers to live but not to become 

‘independently wealthy’.” Thus for the workers lot to improve, they can do nothing about it 

individually. 

Hans: If you are hard-working, strong-willed, and resilient against the blows which a working class existence 

dishes out, you do have chances to become a capitalist. This is a very cunning feature of the system: those workers 

who have it in themselves to become leaders of the working-class are bought off. 

Message [1799] referenced by [2007fa:717]. First Message by Rudy is [144]. 


2007SP, 777 in 2007fa, 807 in 2008SP, 812 in 2008fa, 845 in 2009fa, 915 in 2010fa, and 

948 in 2011fa: 

Question 678 “The poor and idle are a necessary consequence of the rich and active.” 


[1797] COMMI: The poor and idle are a consequence of the rich and active is a true 

statement. As Marx says, “they degrade him to the level of an appendage of a machine, 

the destroy the actual content of his labor by turning it into a torment... they transform his 

life-time into working-time, and drag his wife and child beneath the juggernaut of capital” 

[798:4/o]. The poor are poor because the capitalist doesn’t pay them a livable wage. They 

take the joy out of work and make the lives of the workers miserable. 90% of the world’s 

wealth is held by 2% of the population. 98% of the population isn’t poor and idle by choice 

they are put there by the rich. 

Hans: As Thugtorious says in [1798], “they transform his life-time into working-time” is just the opposite of 

“idle.” 

Capitalism is possible in which workers do get a “livable wage” and most of the wealth still goes to the capitalists. 

The demand must not only be for a livable wage but the workers need control of their own means of 

production. 

Message [1797] referenced by [1847]. Next Message by COMMI is [1928]. 

[1798] Thugtorious: graded A Reply to Commi’s Answer to 678. COMMI’s analysis 

is correct in that there is an unequal distribution of wealth, and his/her use of the Marx 

quote speaks directly to the abuse of the proletariat. However, the statement referred to in 

the question is a FALSE statement. If anything, it should read “the poor and active are a 

necessary consequence of the rich and idle,” or just “the poor are a necessary consequence 

of the rich.” Marx would never say that the poor are in that situation because they are “idle.” 

The poor are abused and subjugated to their position because those that own capital exploit 

them via their ownership. 

Final Grading Note by Hans: You are one of the two graduate students enrolled in this class, and you more than 

earned your graduate credit. To me it felt like I had an extra teaching assistant. Your help in teaching this class is 

very much appreciated. 


Message [1798] referenced by [1797], [1800], [1828], and [2010fa:1131]. Next Message by Thugtorious is [1927]. 

[1800] Nazgul: graded A Capitalist Idle. In response to post [1798] made by Thugtorious, 

I have to disagree with his assertion that “Marx would never say that the poor are in that 

situation because they are ‘idle’.” I think Marx’s use of the term idle has been misrepresented 

here. The poor are not in the situation because they are idle, but idle because of the situation 

capitalism has put them in. This entire argument has its basis in question 648 which was 

answered by ADHH [1796], however it does require further comment. The surplus population 

is important as a bargaining tool, however, there is a more important underlying aspect 

to this which goes back to previous chapters and discussions of surplus-value and exchange 

value. 

The surplus population is needed because in order for capitalists to increase the surplus 

value, the total costs of wages must remain less than the exchange value realized for the items 

produced. Without the surplus population, the wages would advance to a level where the 

extraction of surplus value would be diminished. Capitalism requires some unemployment 

in order to maintain the lower wage level, the “proletariat” is divided into the poor and 

idle and the rich and active or a section that is worked to the maximum. This is how the 

greatest surplus value is obtained. The word idle is referred in this sense to individuals being 

unemployed not to them being lazy. 

Hans: Good point, although it is a stretch to call the employed workers “rich.” They should be rich, because they 

do all the work. 


[1828] Claire: Do the rich effect poverty? This is a true statement. Marx shows this by 

saying that when one side of society raises up, the other must fall. “Accumulation of wealth 

ar one pole is, therefore, at the same time accumulation of misery, the torment of labor, 

slavery, ignorance, brutalization and moral degradation at the opposite pole, i.e. on the side 

of the class that produces its own product as capital” (p550). By the capitalist becoming 

richer and richer makes the poor more and more into poverty. This creates the rich to be 

active and the poor to be idle and therefore are consequences of each other. 

Hans: Of course it is only true in capitalism, or in class societies generally, that the rise of one side of society is 

conditioned on the fall of the other. Furthermore, Thugtorious’s comment [1798] also applies to your answer. Did 

you read it? 

Message [1828] referenced by [1847]. First Message by Claire is [96]. 

[1847] Aaron: As in Claire’s assessment [1828] and with regards to Commi’s [1797] I 

will align my interpretation with theirs. Moreover I think that in the process of divorcing 

the labor from capital the capitalist will further see the laborer as a commodity of labor 

power rather than an unemployed / employed, rich or poor. The poor and idle as stated in 

the question are merely a line item on expense reports. So speaking in terms of balance, 

meaning if there are poor and idle people the others who are not must be rich and active. 

The balance of resources on the earth continually changes ownership; however, matter is 

neither completely destroyed nor created. So to repeat the point that when the rich become 

more wealthy that surplus is extracted from the opposite pole, the poor, who get poorer. 

Hans: You are critical of the rich but you are not critical enough of a language which associates “poor” with “idle” 

and “rich” with “active.” Therefore your text implies that the rich are rich because they are active (but not charitable 

enough towards the poor or not sharing the natural resources with the poor). The possibility that the rich might be 

rich through of the labor of the poor is excluded from the beginning by the language you are using. 

Next Message by Aaron is [1849].


[1865] Ernesto: poor and active-rich and idle. I tend to believe that this statement is 

false. Studies show that the more money an individual makes the greater becomes his or 

her propensity to consume leisure time. The poor are tirelessly working to make ends meet 

while the rich consume their surplus. The poor are in large part deprived of leisure time. 

Hans: You are looking at each of the two separately without relation to the other. If both have typical neoclassical 

utility functions and free choice about the number of hours they want to work given their wage, then the lowerwaged 

worker would work more and the higher-waged worker less. In this theory the market acts as the neutral 

arbitrator between given individual preferences and endowments. 

Marx’s theory not only looks at rich and poor separately but also at their relation. In this theory, the market is 

the shiny and deceptive surface covering up a one-sided transfer of wealth from the workers to the capitalists. 


Question 681 is 386 in 1997WI, 456 in 1998WI, 480 in 1999SP, 734 in 2004fa, 780 in 


Question 681 What is the General Law of Capitalist Accumulation? 

[1805] Jerm: Simply stated, the general law of capitalist accumulation is that as wealth 

grows, so does poverty. Marx also refers to pauperism, in his writings he says: “the more 

extensive the pauperized sections of the working class and the industrial reserve army, the 

greater is official pauperism.” As capital, social wealth, and productivity grow, the industrial 

army grows as well. 

Hans: Do you mean industrial army or industrial reserve army? 

This stark contrast between wealth and poverty makes a good sound byte, but it does not reflect the mechanisms 

very well which drive it all. Pauperism is a by-product of low wages and unemployment. Pauperism itself is not 

functional for capital accumulation, but low wages and unemployment are. 


Question 702 Give examples where use-value is an economic form determination. (Difficult!) 

[29] Thugtorious: (graded A) Use-values which affect the relations of production. If 

you are going to have a trial run, you might as well make it a difficult question! 

As with all of Marx’s passages, the discussion of “use-value” is hard to follow on the 

first read, especially when considering it an “economic determination.” Throughout the first 

section of Kapital, Marx outlines the duality of a commodity by discussing its “use-value” 

and its “exchange-value.” He spends quite a bit of time breaking down the characteristics of 

an object’s use-value, but essentially concludes that an object’s use-value exists on its own 

outside of the realm of political economy. For instance, a diamond has a use value contingent 

upon its physical characteristics as a hard substance along with aesthetically pleasing nature. 

However, a diamond by itself is not a commodity until it is used by a glass-cutter or worn 

by a debutant. Yet, the use-value is unhindered by its eventual occupation. It exists outside 

of the realm of political economy. (akmk.pdf, p. 1346 for further discussion). 

However, Marx does give an exception when use-value collides with political economy: 

“Use-value falls into [the area of political economy] whenever it is modified by the modern 

production relations or itself exerts a modifying influence on them” (akmk.pdf, p. 1348, 


quote from Grundrisse, 881:2a by Ehrbar). So, what type of object would have the characteristics 

to affect the relations of production? What object, when introduced, would economically 

determine the relations of production and not vice-versa? The only object, or idea, that 

came to mind in light of this peculiar situation was technology. Marx himself devotes an entire 

section of Volume I to detailing the dichotomy of labor (in this case, physical labor from 

human workers) and machinery, or technology. The implementation of technology alters the 

fundamental relations of production: “The instrument of labour, when it takes the form of a 

machine, immediately becomes a competitor of the worker himself” (“Capital”, 557:1/oo). 

The advent of computers expedited many different functions of business, leisure, and 

almost every aspect of society. Computer technology’s use-value was just that: allow the 

transfer of information quicker, automation of production, etc. Unfortunately, with its efficient 

nature, computer technology was in direct competition with many different jobs. In my 

mind, the use-value of most technologies introduced in bourgeois socities throughout time 

have been in direct contradiction to physical labor and is owned by the capitalists (the owners 

of all capital). Therefore, the introduction of new technologies alters the fundamental 

relations of productions, and thus its use-value “falls into the realm of political economy.” 

Overall, technology is an economic form of determination. 


[33] Hans: Cell phones and the internet: consumption with social ramifications. 

Thugtorius argues that use-values are anchored in the physical characteristics of the goods, 

therefore outside the realm of political economy. This is a very general argument; it is probably 

true most of the time, but there are likely to be exceptions. And the main exception 

Thugtorious could think of was increases in productivity, which eliminate jobs and in this 

way have economic effects. 

I am pleased to have our discussion begin with such a high-quality contribution (which 

would certainly have received an A had it been graded). But let me spin the argument on: 

can’t one say that production is anchored in nature too? Why does Marx say that production 

is a very central activity which affects the whole structure of society, but consumption is 

not? 

I think the answer is that consumption can be done individually, but production is always 

of necessity a social process. Individuals are forced to live in society, rather than going off 

on their own, because they cannot provide for themselves if they are cut off from society. 

This is my explanation why Marx writes, in the text just after Question 701: 

Although use-values serve social needs and therefore exist within a social 

context, they do not express a social relation of production. 

Recent technological advances have provided a test case for the hypothesis that consumption 

does not have an impact on the social relations because it is done individually. Modern 

information technology (cell phones, computers) cannot be consumed alone. If the hypothesis 

is true, this means that this kind of consumption can indeed have an impact on the social 

structure. A society in which everyone wears a cell phone and is in contact several times a 

day with their circle of friends is a different society than one in which everbody is either at


home or on the job or in the car, with much more restricted and predictable outside interaction. 

And a world in which people can communicate instantly and cheaply around the globe 

is also apt to engender different social relations. I am optimistic that these new consumer 

goods will have a positive impact. 


Term Paper 807 is 507 in 1997WI, 507 in 1997sp, 907 in 1997ut, 907 in 1998WI, 907 in 

1999SP, 907 in 2001fa, and 535 in 2008SP: 

Term Paper 807 Essay about Chapter Seven: Labor Process and Valorization Process 

[1008] Snowy, Bubba, MarxSchmarx, Xerho, and FranciscoVilla: chapter seven review. 

This is termpaper [1012] as privately pre-submitted to Hans, with Hans’s commentary 

as the end. 

Hans this is the early submission of our paper. The citations are not the same format and 

we will fix them for the final submission. We will appreciate your commentary. Thanks 

Chapter Seven Review: 

Surplus value allows the system of capitalism to function, according to Marx’s analysis in 

chapter seven of Capital. In earlier chapters, he demonstrated that the value in a commodity 

comes from human labor. In section two of Capital, Marx begins with the capitalist hiring 

a laborer and puts him to work. Marx describes the act of hiring as buying labor-power. 

In addition, Marx describes the act of putting the laborer to work as consuming that laborpower. 

He states, “The fact that the production of use-values, or goods, is carried on under 

the control of a capitalist and on his behalf, does not alter the general character of that 

production” (Section 1, Para. 1). The laborer knows he is endowing the commodity with 

value that the capitalist will own as soon as he has finished his work. This basic production 

process is the same as if the capitalist were completing the process for himself. Marx begins 

an in-depth analysis of the production process with the declaration that, “Labour is, in the 

first place, a process in which both man and Nature participate” (Section 1, Para. 2). He 

outlines three basic elements of the labor process: “1, the personal activity of man, i.e., 

work itself, 2, the subject of that work, and 3, its instruments” (Section 1, Para. 3). This 

review will cover the section on human work first, followed by a description of both the 

subject and instruments together. 

First, the laborer acts as one of nature’s forces. Inside him, the laborer contains “slumbering 

powers” (Section 1, Para. 2) that he must call forth and develop in order to work his 

external limbs, thereby interacting with nature. These inner forces include the unique human 

ability to envision the completed task before beginning the work. Marx illustrates this 

unique ability using the example of an architect’s vision of the structure versus a honeybee, 

which works out of instinct. The inner forces also include the “close attention” (ibid.) that 

the laborer must put into his work in order to avoid becoming distracted and derailed from 

his purpose. Finally, it takes exertion of bodily organs to manipulate nature. 

Nature itself provides the resources, what Marx calls subjects of labor, with which the 

laborer can work. A natural resource that is an input into the production process already 

has value in most cases (e.g., iron ore that was extracted from the ground using human 


labor). Marx dubs such an input raw material. Nature also provides tools, which Marx calls 

instruments of labor. An instrument of labor can be as simple as a goat a lazy man uses 

to mow his lawn. Both raw materials and instruments of labor are means of production; 

both are products having use-values. Marx comments, the users forget that the products 

contain somebody’s labor, the exception being shoddy products: “A blunt knife or weak 

thread forcibly remind us of Mr. A., the cutler, or Mr. B., the spinner” (Section 1, Para. 

16). In the process of producing the final commodity, “labour uses up its material factors, 

its subject and its instruments, consumes them, and is therefore a process of consumption” 

(Section 1, Para. 19). The use-values of the means of production disappear into the process, 

and a new use-value emerges. In summary, Marx illustrates by using a hypothetical capitalist 

who goes to the market and buys both the labor-power and the means of production. Hence, 

the capitalist consumes the labor-power by causing the laborer to consume the means of 

production with his labor. Since the “capitalist pays for a day’s labour-power at its value; 

then the right to use that power for a day belongs to him,” (Section 1, Para. 24), also, the final 

commodity belongs to him. The capitalist seeks above all to “produce a commodity whose 

value shall be greater than the sum of the values of the commodities used in its production” 

(Section 2, Para. 1). In order to produce a commodity of such value as to be greater than the 

sum of the inputs, the capitalist must extract surplus value. 

“Let us now examine production as a creation of value” [293:3]. Beginning in 293, Marx 

uses two scenarios as examples of how the capitalist can extract profits from surplus value. 

Scenario 1 shows no surplus value: 

Wage: 6 hours labor: 3 shillings (subsistence) 

Production rate: In 1 hour, 1.666 lbs. Cotton = 1.666 lbs. Yarn. Therefore, in a half of a 

working day (6 hours): 10 lbs. Cotton = 10 lbs. Yarn. 

Selling price: 10 lbs. Yarn sells for 15 shillings (2.5 days’ pay). 10 shillings of the selling 

price (15) pays for the cotton and 2 shillings pays for the wear of the machine. 

Total cost of means of production: 12 shillings. 

Calculating the wage: Selling price (15) – cost of inputs (12) = 3 schillings (half day’s 

pay) 

Scenario 2 shows surplus value: 


Production rate: In 12 hours, 20 lbs. Cotton = 20 lbs. Yarn. 

Selling price: 20 lbs. Yarn sells for 30 shillings (5 days’ pay) 

Therefore, 20 shillings goes to paying for the cotton, 4 shillings for wear on the machine, 

leaving: 

3 shillings for the laborer (1/2 days’ pay) 

3 shillings for the capitalist (1/2 days’ pay)


Evidence of capitalists profiting from surplus value as Marx mapped out in scenario 2 

is emblematic of our capitalist society. One group member described a co-worker who 

supports a family working numerous hours for minimal subsistence wages. The co-worker 

is forced to sell his labor at minimal prices to survive and feed his family. This proves 

Marx’s point that, labor itself does not set labor market prices; therefore, a laborer must 

subject themselves to existing labor market prices in order to earn enough money to survive. 

Only in collective bargaining will labor have somewhat of a voice or in very specialized 

fields, where there exists a greater demand for a specific skill. Marx further comments on 

this type of injustice by stating, “Our capitalist, who is at home in his vulgar economy, 

exclaims: ‘Oh! But I advanced my money for the express purpose of making more money.’ 

The way to Hell is paved with good intentions, and he might just as easily have intended 

to make money, without producing at all.” [298:2/oo]. According to Marx, the capitalist 

justifies exploiting the laborer using the argument: the laborer would not have the means 

to produce without the supplement of the material and tools necessary for production. A 

group member who owned a business admitted to the practice of exploiting his workers. His 

landscaping business required tools, permits, knowledge and most importantly, heavy labor. 

Ex-convicts right out of prison, drug-users, and illegal immigrants were the preferred types 

of laborers to hire for his business; this is because of their willingness to sell their labor at a 

subsistence rate. The group member/capitalist’s goal was to maintain a large pool of laborers 

so that there was a large supply of labor, thus bringing prices down. His workers/laborers 

only subjected themselves to selling their labor for a lesser wage because they did not have 

another choice of work due to many different factors. Without this group member/capitalist 

it would be a near-impossible task for these types of laborers to create the same product 

alone. The reason that Marx states that the laborer is willing to be used as long as needed by 

the capitalist is because the laborer is willing to do it. If a laborer refuses this agreement, the 

capitalist will find one that is willing. As mentioned above, the laborer cannot create the end 

product without the means to do so. The laborer needs the capitalist because the capitalist 

provides a way for the worker to earn a wage that keeps him alive. 

Chapter seven emphasizes one of the basic points in Capital. Without the creation of 

surplus value, capitalism would cease to exist. By paying the worker an “exchange-value” 

for his labor, the capitalist is entitled to the use-values that are created by the labor that 

he now owns. The workers are selling their rights to their labor, and because of this, the 

capitalist is able to exploit them by paying them less than what they ultimately will produce 

for the capitalist. This is the compensation that the capitalist receives for coordinating the 

labor, providing the instruments of the work, and managing the whole process. Thus surplusvalue 

drives the capitalist, exploits the laborer, and fuels the system. 

Hans: I like the pre-submission of your term paper very much. Just one comment. In your second paragraph you 

write: “A natural resource that is an input into the production process already has value in most cases (e.g., iron 

ore that was extracted from the ground using human labor).” The inputs in most cases already contain human labor. 

This is true for production in general, whether it is production for a market or not. Therefore you should not equate 

“contain human labor” with “have value”. The sentence should be changed to read: “A natural resource that is an 

input into the production process already contains labor in most cases (e.g., iron ore that was extracted from the 

ground using human labor).” 

Perhaps there is something else you may want to change. In your first paragraph you write: The laborer knows 

he is endowing the commodity with value that the capitalist will own as soon as he has finished his work. This is 

right as far as it goes, but it is misleading, because the laborer does not know how much value his labor contributes to 


the product. According to Marx’s theory, the value created by the laborer is much more than their wages. Laborers 

are often not aware of this. Marx has devoted the whole chapter 19 to the question why laborers do not see this. 


[1012] Bubba, Snowy, FranciscoVilla, Xerho, and MarxSchmarx: Chapter Seven Review: 

Surplus value allows the system of capitalism to function, according to Marx’s analysis in 

chapter seven of Capital. In earlier chapters, he demonstrated that the value in a commodity 

comes from human labor. In section two of Capital, Marx begins with the capitalist hiring 

a laborer and puts him to work. Marx describes the act of hiring as buying labor-power. 

In addition, Marx describes the act of putting the laborer to work as consuming that laborpower. 

He states, “The fact that the production of use-values, or goods, is carried on under 

the control of a capitalist and on his behalf, does not alter the general character of that 

production” (Section 1, Para. 1). The laborer knows he is endowing the commodity with 

value (though the amount of value added is unknown to him) that the capitalist will own as 

soon as he has finished his work. This basic production process is the same as if the capitalist 

were completing the process for himself. 

Marx begins an in-depth analysis of the production process with the declaration that, 

“Labour is, in the first place, a process in which both man and Nature participate” (Section 

1, Para. 2 283:2/o). He outlines three basic elements of the labor process: “1, the personal 

activity of man, i.e., work itself, 2, the subject of that work, and 3, its instruments” (Section 

1, Para. 3 284:1). This review will cover the section on human work first, followed by a 

description of both the subject and instruments together. 

First, the laborer acts as one of nature’s forces. Inside him, the laborer contains “slumbering 

powers” (Section 1, Para. 2 283:2/o) that he must call forth and develop in order to work 

his external limbs, thereby interacting with nature. These inner forces include the unique human 

ability to envision the completed task before beginning the work. Marx illustrates this 

unique ability using the example of an architect’s vision of the structure versus a honeybee, 

which works out of instinct. The inner forces also include the “close attention” (ibid.) that 

the laborer must put into his work in order to avoid becoming distracted and derailed from 

his purpose. Finally, it takes exertion of bodily organs to manipulate nature. 

Nature itself provides the resources, what Marx calls subjects of labor, with which the 

laborer can work. A natural resource that is an input into the production process already 

contains labor in most cases (e.g., iron ore that was extracted from the ground using human 

labor). Marx dubs such an input raw material. Nature also provides tools, which Marx calls 

instruments of labor. An instrument of labor can be as simple as a goat a lazy man uses 

to mow his lawn. Both raw materials and instruments of labor are means of production; 

both are products having use-values. Marx comments, the users forget that the products 

contain somebody’s labor, the exception being shoddy products: “A blunt knife or weak 

thread forcibly remind us of Mr. A., the cutler, or Mr. B., the spinner” (Section 1, Para. 16 

289:2). In the process of producing the final commodity, “labour uses up its material factors, 

its subject and its instruments, consumes them, and is therefore a process of consumption” 

(Section 1, Para. 19 290:2). The use-values of the means of production disappear into the 

process, and a new use-value emerges. In summary, Marx illustrates by using a hypothetical


capitalist who goes to the market and buys both the labor-power and the means of production. 

Hence, the capitalist consumes the labor-power by causing the laborer to consume the means 

of production with his labor. Since the “capitalist pays for a day’s labour-power at its value; 

then the right to use that power for a day belongs to him,” (Section 1, Para. 24), also, the final 

commodity belongs to him. The capitalist seeks above all to “produce a commodity whose 

value shall be greater than the sum of the values of the commodities used in its production” 

(Section 2, Para. 1). In order to produce a commodity of such value as to be greater than the 

sum of the inputs, the capitalist must extract surplus value. 

“Let us now examine production as a creation of value” (Section 2, Para. 3). Beginning 

in Section 2, Marx uses two scenarios as examples of how the capitalist can extract profits 

from surplus value. 

Scenario 1 shows no surplus value: 


Production rate: In 1 hour, 1.666 lbs. Cotton = 1.666 lbs. Yarn. Therefore, in a half of a 

working day (6 hours): 10 lbs. Cotton = 10 lbs. Yarn. 

Selling price: 10 lbs. Yarn sells for 15 shillings (2.5 days’ pay). 10 shillings of the selling 

price (15) pays for the cotton and 2 shillings pays for the wear of the machine. 

Total cost of means of production: 12 shillings. 

Residual: Selling price (15) – cost of inputs (12) – wages (3 schillings) = 0; no profits 

Scenario 2 shows surplus value: 


Production rate: In 12 hours, 20 lbs. Cotton = 20 lbs. Yarn. 

Selling price: 20 lbs. Yarn sells for 30 shillings (5 days’ pay) 

Residual: Therefore, 20 shillings goes to paying for the cotton, 4 shillings for wear on 

the machine, 3 shillings for the laborer (1/2 days’ value product), leaving 3 shillings for the 

capitalist (1/2 days’ value product) 

Evidence of capitalists profiting from surplus value as Marx mapped out in scenario 2 is 

emblematic of our capitalist society. One group member described a co-worker who supports 

a family by working numerous hours for minimal subsistence wages. The co-worker is 

forced to sell his labor at minimal prices to survive and feed his family. This proves Marx’s 

point that, labor itself does not set labor market prices; therefore, a laborer must subject 

himself to existing labor market prices in order to earn enough money to survive. Only 

in collective bargaining will labor have somewhat of a voice or in very specialized fields, 

where there exists a greater demand for a specific skill. Marx further comments on this type 

of injustice by stating, “Our capitalist, who is at home in his vulgar economy, exclaims: 

‘Oh! But I advanced my money for the express purpose of making more money. The way 

to Hell is paved with good intentions, and he might just as easily have intended to make 

money, without producing at all.’” (Section 2, Para. 21). According to Marx, the capitalist 

justifies exploiting the laborer using the argument: the laborer would not have the means 


to produce without the supplement of the material and tools necessary for production. A 

group member who owned a business admitted to the practice of exploiting his workers. His 

landscaping business required tools, permits, knowledge and most importantly, heavy labor. 

Ex-convicts right out of prison, drug-users, and illegal immigrants were the preferred types 

of laborers to hire for his business; this is because of their willingness to sell their labor at a 

subsistence rate. The group member/capitalist’s goal was to maintain a large pool of laborers 

so that there was a large supply of labor, thus bringing prices down. His workers/laborers 

only subjected themselves to selling their labor for a lesser wage because they did not have 

another choice of work due to many different factors. Without this group member/capitalist 

it would be a near-impossible task for these types of laborers to create the same product 

alone. The reason that Marx states that the laborer is willing to be used as long as needed by 

the capitalist is because the laborer is willing to do it. If a laborer refuses this agreement, the 

capitalist will find one that is willing. As mentioned above, the laborer cannot create the end 

product without the means to do so. The laborer needs the capitalist because the capitalist 

provides a way for the worker to earn a wage that keeps him alive. 

Chapter seven emphasizes one of the basic points in Capital. 

Without the creation of surplus value, capitalism would cease to exist. By paying the 

worker an “exchange-value” for his labor, the capitalist is entitled to the use-values that are 

created by the labor that he now owns. The workers are selling their rights to their labor, 

and because of this, the capitalist is able to exploit them by paying them less than what they 

ultimately will produce for the capitalist. This is the compensation that the capitalist receives 

for coordinating the labor, providing the instruments of the work, and managing the whole 

process. Thus surplus-value drives the capitalist, exploits the laborer, and fuels the system. 

Hans: I simplified your accounting in such a way that only the profits are shown as the residual. In your original 

submission, wages showed up twice: first as cost, and then as part of the residual. You can still see this original 

version in [1008]. 

The fact that the workers don’t have access to the means of production is not only the bosses’ justification for 

their exploitation but, according to Marx, the basic reason why the capitalists can get away with exploiting the 

laborers. 

Message [1012] referenced by [1008] and [1124]. Next Message by Bubba is [1252]. 

[1124] Hans: The special character of wages. In chapter Seven, Marx computes the 

surplus-value produced by a working day. He does this in an odd and funny roundabout 

manner. He first calculates the surplus-value under the assumption that the working day 

only consists of 6 hours. It turns out in his example that there is exactly zero profit: no 

profit, no loss. Then Marx describes how the disappointed capitalist throws a tantrum and 

tries all the excuses of the vulgar economists why he should be getting a profit. But none of 

these arguments holds water. 

Finally the capitalist bursts into laughter: he was just joking. The real reason why he 

is making profits is that the working day is not 6 hours but 12 hours. And indeed, if the 

same calculation is repeated with 12 hours, a handsome profit appears which is as big as the 

laborers’ total wages. 

Both of these calculations are reproduced in the very good term paper [1012]. But the 

reader of this term paper may have wondered: why does Marx first give a wrong calculation,


and then corrects himself and gives the correct calculation? Why does he not give the right 

calculation right away? 

To answer this, note that scenario 1, the “wrong” scenario, is based on very natural assumptions. 

Marx starts with a 6 hour working day because the daily wages of 3 sh. are equal 

to the value created in 6 hours. I.e., Marx treats the wage costs in the same way as the costs 

of the other inputs, which also transfer their value to the end product. 

But then the capitalist says: I don’t have to send the worker home after 6 hours. After all, 

the 3 shillings I paid him are enough to cover his cost of living for a day, therefore I have the 

right to consume his labor-power for a full day. 

In other words, wages are special. Labor-power is the only commodity whose use creates 

more value than it costs. Marx uses his roundabout presentation in chapter Seven to 

underline the special character of wages. He wanted Capital to be read by workers, and 

he wanted workers to be aware of the special character of the commodity they are selling. 

Strictly speaking, the second half of each working day is unpaid labor. 


Term Paper 810 is 510 in 1997WI, 510 in 1997sp, 910 in 1997ut, 910 in 1998WI, 910 in 


Term Paper 810 Essay about Chapter Ten: The Struggle around the Working Day 

[1146] TriPod, Claire, and Dange: Moral and Physiological Bounds. To the capitalist, 

the working day is 24 complete hours. The only time that is subtracted from the working 

day is the time when the worker becomes physically unable to work and must rest to regain 

labor power. The worker is given only enough rest to ready him for the next working day; 

no time is given for leisure, hobbies, or social interactions. The labor power is used up by 

the capitalist until the worker is physically unable to work. 

The moral and physiological bounds of the working day are disrespected by the capitalist. 

Moral bounds are defined by Marx as the time for leisure, education, mental development 

and social interactions. The physiological bounds include the physical maximum bounds of 

the working day which steal time for growth, health maintenance, and fresh air and sunshine. 

Because of the physiological bounds of the working day, the worker does not have time 

to value mealtimes. To the worker, food is regarded only as fuel to produce more labor, such 

as the machinery needs grease and oil in order to maintain production [375/o]. 

The Physiological Bounds are defined as Boundaries I and II. Boundary I is when rest is 

allowed until the body is fully recovered, while Boundary II allows rest only enough until 

the laborer’s ability to work returns. 

The physiological and moral boundaries relate to the current issue of the earthquakes in 

the Middle East. There have been several stories of the aid workers who are Muslim that 

were participating in Ramadan. They put their health on the line by fasting all day and eating 

only at night. These people were working all day in horrible heat trying to rescue people 

who were injured. They had no choice but to work all day. In this instance food was regarded 

only as fuel to help them get through the next day. 


Many Muslim scholars came out over the past weeks and said that those who are Muslim 

should continue to fast because it brings them closer to Allah. These people worked many 

hours trying to rescue the injured with no food and no regard to their health. Many aid 

workers became ill and some even died from dehydration. Should the Muslim scholars have 

said that people are allowed to skip this fast because of the circumstances? It seems that this 

should have been the case since the physiological and moral bounds in Marx’s terms were 

being violated. 

The capitalist does not care that the worker is losing his health, for it is more important 

to squeeze as much labor power out of the worker as possible. Marx uses an analogy of a 

greedy farmer to make this point, “It attains this end by decreasing the length of the laborer’s 

life, as a greedy farmer snatches increased produce from the soil by robbing it of its fertility” 

[375/o]. 

The capitalist is ignoring the physiological boundaries II; he is not allowing the worker 

to rest until he has regained his capacity to work again. In doing so, the capitalist is actually 

going against his own self-interests. 

The capitalist is shortening the worker’s life by robbing him of needed rest and recovery 

from the working day. By taking as much labor power out of the worker as possible, the 

capitalist is not allowing the worker to maintain his health and is therefore shortening his 

life. This is a contradiction because the capitalist will actually get less labor from the worker 

in the long run since eventually the laborer will be physically unable to work. 

The capitalists do not care that they are taking lives for the labor they demand because 

workers are easily replaced by the overpopulation of the world. The length of life is decreasing 

because of this demand for long hours and work conditions. If one looks at this literally, 

the capitalist society is killing workers. 

This illustration shows that the many hours of labor without vital rest are actually stealing 

from the workers’ humanity. Because the capitalist is diminishing the workers’ health, 

Boundary II should not be violated. 

Just as in the example of the Muslim aid workers in the earthquake who are sticking 

to their fast despite working to exhaustion, there needs to be a line drawn. The Muslim 

scholars should have come out and said it was necessary to break their fast. The Muslims as 

a whole could move their fast to another time. We understand that fasting is a fundamental 

part of the Muslim faith; however, people should never have to jeopardize their life in the 

name of religion. Through this example one can see that the importance of boundary I in 

the Marxist ideal must be stressed. The worker must be given the rest and welfare needed 

before expected to perform during the next working day. 

Hans: It is easy for us to see that nobody should jeopardize their health because of religion. It is much more 

difficult to see that, by the same reasoning, nobody should jeopardize their health because of profits. 

I don’t know why you are talking about the “Marxist ideal” in conjunction with the boundaries of the workingday. 

These are very real boundaries whose violation has real effects. An ideal situation would be to have the 

working-day far below these boundaries. 


[1152] Hans: More term paper ideas. If you are interested in a shorter work week, I can 

recommend


http://www.worklessparty.org/timework/timework.htm 

The material on that web site is a very useful addition to our present readings. If you want 

to write a term paper using this material, just email me a proposal. Whenever I approve a 

term paper topic for one class participant, this same topic will also be offered to all the 

others. 

Hans. 


[1153] Geo, Zone, Demosthenes, and Iblindone: graded A– 10.1 The Limits of the 

Working Day 

“The working-day is ... determinable, but for and in itself indeterminate.” In Chapter Ten, 

Marx analyzes the factors that may or may not affect the length of the working day. 

Marx first establishes the indeterminacy of the workday if left to its own devices, that is 

to say, left in the hands of the workers and capitalists. He lays out some tentative boundaries, 

but is sure to point out that these limits are widely variable. 

The minimum limit is the worker’s “necessary labor time,” or the length of time needed 

to produce an equivalent of his daily wage. Any labor in addition to the necessary labor time 

is surplus labor, labor for which the worker is not compensated by wages. Marx claims that 

this is not a true limit, however, since capitalism cannot exist without at least some surplus 

labor. 

The maximum limit is determined by physiological and moral bounds. A worker can only 

work for so long until his strength is exhausted. He must spend time eating, sleeping, and 

caring for his physical needs. The worker has cultural or moral needs as well. He doesn’t 

want to spend all of his time working, but also demands leisure and entertainment. These 

physiological bounds, according to Marx, are also “of a very elastic nature, and allow the 

greatest latitude.” 

The workday, then, can be many different lengths inside these two bounds. There are two 

forces that maintain a constant struggle when trying to determine this length: the capitalist 

who has purchased the labor, and the worker who must supply it. 

The capitalist and the worker have agreed to exchange their commodities. The worker 

will supply his labor, and the capitalist will pay wages. How long, though, must the worker 

be bound for the agreement to be fulfilled? The capitalist’s wants are insatiable. Marx 

compares him to a vampire, risen from dead labor, who only lives by sucking new labor, and 

the more he sucks, the more he lives. He has paid the worker for his day, and any time the 

worker uses for his own pursuits he is robbing the capitalist. 

How then, is the worker to justify a working day of anything less than twenty-four hours? 

He calls upon the laws of commodity exchange to limit the capitalist’s use of his laborpower. 

He defends that although the capitalist has the right to use today’s labor-power as he 

sees fit, he must not rob the worker of his ability to work tomorrow. If the worker, through 

his expenditure of labor-power today, is not able to work with the same ability tomorrow, 

then the capitalist has over-extended his contract. 


The worker and the capitalist each want to claim their rights in the exchange. The capitalist 

wants to get the maximum benefit from the commodity he has purchased from the worker, 

whereas the worker wants to defend his ability to reproduce his commodity by means of his 

daily wage. This struggle cannot be resolved within the market, so we must look outward to 

mediating forces to solve the problem. 

10.2 The Thirst for Surplus Labor 

Section 2 of chapter Ten in Capital brings the labor exploitation argument into full stride. 

Marx continues his discussion of ‘surplus labor’ by comparing capitalist labor surplus and 

historical instances, where surplus labor was extreme and lead to labor exploitation, even 

death. Marx says that it is not capital that produces this surplus, but it is when a means of 

production has been monopolized. At this point of monopolized production the laborer must 

not only provide labor for his/her own subsistence but provide the necessary labor for subsistence 

of the owners means of production. He points out that in any economic formation 

of society where use-value predominates exchange-value there will be no ‘boundless thirst’ 

for surplus labor. But in earlier forms of exploitation, such as the Egyptian gold mines, 

exchange-value was a primary determinant of value. As noted in the Annotations, “that 

production for value rather than use-value leads to overwork.” [344:2/o] 

Capitalism changed this. Instead of exploitation resulting from an exchange-value determination, 

it occurred because of monopolistic production methods which required necessary 

labor for the laborer’s subsistence and the subsistence for the means of production. But as 

Marx articulates, total worker production here is not socially sustainable. Some limits to 

labor time must be set. He uses the introduction of the factory acts, which were fought for 

by the laborers, as an example of this necessity. The general interests of society as a whole 

depend upon labor productivity, and it is in the best interest of the society and the long-term 

interest of the capitalists to not undermine the laborer’s productivity. But even if it is in the 

best interests of the general society the capitalist still seeks for surplus labor out of greed, 

requiring an ever increasing demand on necessary labor time. 

10.5 The Struggle of the Length of the Work Day 

Section 10.5 of Capital examines the struggle between the capitalists and the workers in 

the length of the work day. The capitalists would make it appear that it is only in the workers’ 

interest to shorten the workday so they can pursue their own interests. The capitalists would 

want the workers to work the maximum amount of hours possible, no matter what the cost 

to the worker. However, what the capitalists do not realize is that this is not in their best 

interests. 

In capitalism, the means of production are owned by the capitalists, henceforth the workers 

are also treated as just another machine that aids in production of profits. The difference 

between the two is a human machine requires food and rest instead of oil and grease for 

maintenance. Unlike machines, the worker deteriorates at a greater level than that of machines. 

Marx states in Value, Price, and Profit, “Man on the contrary decays in a greater ratio 

than would visible from the mere numerical addition of work.” When the worker is not given 

adequate time to rest between working days, the longevity of the worker decreases. Clearly 

the capitalists are trying to maximize the amount of surplus labor within a given work day.


The only reason why they are able to use their human machines in such a manner is because 

there is a readily available supply of surplus labor. However, if there wasn’t this surplus of 

labor available it would in the best interest of the capitalists to adhere to a normal working 

day. They do not examine the benefits to the worker but are only serving their best interests 

in a search for maximized profits. 

When the working day is overextended the ultimate cost is the health of the worker. This 

leads to an early death for the worker at the hands of the capitalist. The cost of replacing the 

worker is addressed in England and America, London, 1833 vol. 1 p. 55: The over-worked 

“die off with strange rapidity; but the places of those who perish are instantly filled, and 

a frequent change of persons makes no alteration in the scene.” [380:1–381:0] Marx states 

that during the Industrial Revolution the replacement workers is coming from the surplus 

of workers in the agriculture industry where there was plenty of readily available labor to 

replace the rapidly diminishing workforce. With this stock of workers waiting to be exploited 

it is not profitable for the capitalist to care about the length of life of the worker since they 

can be easily replaced. Therefore, because it is not in the best interests of the capitalist to 

shorten the length of the working day, it must be determined by law. 

The need for more laborers rapidly turned into a market of “slave labor.” The population 

was being “plucked, so to speak, before they were ripe.” [380:1–381:0] This is making reference 

towards children being forced to work a full work day that most of the time consisted 

of over 12 net hours of work, sometimes at the very young age of 12 or 13. Doing this only 

quickened the already fast pace at which workers were dying off. It was not until the capitalists 

have absorbed the surplus populations of the nearby communities and the constant 

cry for help from the workers did anyone realized that something had to be done about this 

situation. In 1833, the government finally stepped in and set into place regulations on the 

amount of work that could be performed by children. The English Parliament was the first 

to implement such regulations. Soon after many others governments followed. 


[1166] Nazgul: graded A Muslims vs Olympics. I read Tripod, Claire and Dange’s term 

paper [1146] on chapter 10, their focus being on the moral and physiological bounds of the 

working day. Let me start by saying that I do admire all groups who have managed to do 

their projects. I did enjoy this paper, however, I have to disagree with the relevance of Marx’s 

interpretation and the group’s use of the Muslims in the Middle East as an example. 

It is not capitalists that force the Muslims to fast during Ramadan, it is their deep religious 

beliefs. Religion is the main focus in their lives, to sacrifice that or to ask them to “break 

their fast” would be placing capital values first. Their faith is what sustains them and gives 

them “fuel to help them get through the next day.” 

In order for the physiological or moral bounds of Marx’s terms to be violated it would 

seem that the labour-power being exerted would need to produce some type of commodity, 

which it does not in this case. The bounds are also not being violated because they are not 

being denied food by the capitalists, they choose not to eat in the name of religion. 

I did gain a better understanding of the moral and physiological bounds of workers that 

become exploited by capitalists in reading this paper. However, in reading chapter 10 and the 


annotations, I do not feel the example of the Muslims and their working through Ramadan to 

rescue injured people is an example of capitalists exploiting workers’ physiological bounds. 

Perhaps a better example would have been companies like Nike, Adidas, Puma and Umbro 

who in a rush to get athletes of the 2004 Summer Olympics outfitted and get their products 

ready for the games, forced employees to work “longer and harder for less money”. Many 

of the workers were forced to work 16 hour days, others were fired for refusing overtime. 

Oxfam did a report on this as well as on other issues of the exploitation of workers, for those 

who feel very passionate about this issue you might visit Oxfam’s website at 

http://oxfam.org/ 


[1167] TriPod: Muslims vs Olympics. In response to Nazgul’s [1166]: 

I understand that religion is their main focus in life. The issue I had is that many people 

put their lives on the line. It would have been nice to hear the muslim scholars come out 

and say “I know it your religion but maybe you would be a more productive worker if you 

had the energy and the health to rescue people.” I understand that people feel like faith will 

sustain them and help them through the next day, But we know without water and food in a 

110 degree heat, sweating we could become dehyderated fairly quickly and maybe lose our 

life. Imagine day after day. 

In regards to Nike, Adidas, Puma and Umbro I would agree this would be a good example. 

Note the difference: these people were fired for not wanting to work overtime but Muslims 

lost their lives because of not eating and wanting to help their fellow people. Good Example 

I liked it.. Thanks for the quick response. 


Term Paper 813 is 913 in 1999SP, 913 in 2000fa, 913 in 2001fa, 813 in 2002fa, 813 in 


Term Paper 813 Essay about Chapter Thirteen: Co-operation 

[1268] Ace, Bosox, and Rudy: Chapter 13 Cooperation 

Marx starts off explaining the fundamental point of capitalist production is “when each 

individual capital simultaneously employs a comparatively large number of workers”, and 

basically turns around and the labor process “yields relatively large quantities of products” 

(439). It is here that Marx points out that this is the starting point of capitalist production. 

Marx explains that the means of production has evolved as well from the small guild of 

handicraft trades to the major manufacturer with the major difference being the number 

of workers between the two. The manufacturer has the army of laborers and the small 

tradesman just has a few assistants. 

The number of workers has a big effect on the capitalists in some different ways. Marx 

explains that at the beginning the surplus-value of the mass of workers was the same as the 

surplus-value of the individual worker. So the number of workers does not affect the surplusvalue. 

Marx explains it by having 6 shillings being the payment for 12 hours of work, and 

1200 working days of 12 hours a day equals out to 1200 times 6 shillings. This is the same


thing as having one man that works 1200 days and having 1200 men work one day; the same 

value is expressed in each situation. 

There is a situation that violates this and it has to do with the average labor power. Each 

individual worker will vary in production from the average worker and this is expected, 

Marx explains this as an “error” and it does not make any difference because some workers 

produce more and some produce less so it makes no difference between the groups. Marx 

agrees with Edmund Burke in his observations about five farm laborers. Burke observes that 

five laborers taken together will do as much work in the same time that any other five will 

do providing it is the same task. This is how Marx comes up with the average social labor 

of one day. The important point is that 5 or 10 men working for a capitalist is different than 

10 men paired up working under 5 different employers. With pairs the odds of having the 

same level of output is just merely a chance. If one was to have lower levels of output then 

his output would either be unsaleable or have to sell at a level below the market. So there is 

a minimum level of output assumed with production and it is a fixed level of output as well. 

Overall the surplus and the deficit of production both cancel out in the overall society, thus 

bringing in the valorization for each individual producer when there is an employment of 

many workers simultaneously. 

The exchange value of the means of production does not increase with an increase of 

exploitation of workers, but it actually has the opposite effect. When a product is produced 

in an assembly line or with many individuals there is a “smaller part of their value in each 

single product” produced (442). The value of each laborer is spread out among many single 

products and because of this the value actually decreases. Marx explains it by saying “the 

value of a part of the constant falls, and, in proportion to the size of this fall, the total value 

of the commodity falls” (442). So the exchange value is affected by having many different 

laborers working of the same product. 

Marx explains the economy from two different points. First, with commodities becoming 

cheaper the value of the labor power falls as well. Secondly, Marx says as “it alters the ratio 

of the surplus value to the total capital advanced to the sum of the values of its constant 

and variable components” which he does not discuss any further so we will not mention any 

more of it. 

It comes to the point that the worker looks at himself and sees that the labor power he 

possesses exists independent of him and is someone else’s property (443). By doing so, 

the use appears to be a separate operation and not any part of the laborer and he has no 

connection with the methods used to help increase his production. 

Marx comes five pages into the chapter without even mentioning the title of the chapter 

which is the co-operation and here he finally gives a definition of his meaning of the term 

co-operation. Co-operation is “when numerous workers working side by side in accordance 

with a plan, whether in the same process, or in different but connected processes” (443). It is 

explained like a basketball team, it is not just the offense but the defense as well that makes 

up a team. The coach needs both in order to play a game. 

Another example that Marx uses is that of a military force. A squadron of cavalry has an 

offensive power while the infantry hold a great defensive power. When combined these two 


forces are able to accomplish great things on the field of battle. Marx uses these examples 

to illustrate the power of synergy. Synergism is defined as “the interaction of elements 

that when combined produce a total effect that is greater than the sum of the individual 

elements, contributions, etc.” Having only one basketball player on a team or having only 

a squadron of cavalry on a battlefield will provide results, but the results will come at the 

expense of a “great expenditure of time,” or on a “very dwarfed scale.” When co-operation 

is implemented a “new power” is created called “the collective power of masses” which 

operates in connection with the power of synergy. 

Synergy is what brings out “in most industries an emulation and a stimulation of the 

animal spirits that heighten the efficiency of each individual workman.” Humans enjoy the 

company of others and when together their animal spirits, as Marx describes, heighten their 

efficiency. An excellent example of this deals with the mass-production of automobiles 

developed by Henry Ford. Even though most of the workers constructing the automobiles 

were performing menial tasks, their collective labor and cooperation subjected their labor to 

being performed at a much greater speed. “Their separate acts form connected parts of one 

total operation.” The automobiles were constructed faster collectively than they would have 

been if only one worker was working. Thus “the time necessary for the completion of the 

whole work is thereby shortened.” 

An even clearer example deals with agriculture. Harvesting crops, shearing flocks of 

sheep, or fishing for herring are all involved in what Marx calls “critical periods.” Due to 

weather and the lack of environmental control the agricultural industries succeed only if 

cooperation is involved. “The completion of the task within the proper time depends on the 

simultaneous application of numerous combined working-days.” Marx mentions that in his 

day due to the absence of cooperation quantities of cotton were wasted yearly in the western 

part of the United States and East India. 

To assure that quantities of cotton or any other resource is not wasted cooperation needs 

to exist in the industry. For cooperation to exist and succeed the “capitalist should command 

on field of production, just as a general should command on the field of battle.” With 

every industry or with every communal project, a certain degree of supervision is required. 

Marx gives the example of a violin player. By himself, he is his own conductor, but an 

orchestra needs a separate conductor. This example serves as an introduction to issues confronting 

capitalists in the cooperation system. One problem is that as the number of workers 

increases, which increases the surplus value of production for the capitalist, the laborers’ 

resistance to capitalist control also increases. In addition, the capitalist needs to assure the 

correct production processes are applied by the many workers. 

The capitalist overcomes these issues with authority exerted over the laborers. By subjecting 

them to tasks that are generally related, they essentially have no freedom to act on 

their own. This lack of freedom is what Marx terms despotism (pg. 450), inferring that 

capitalist cooperation is authoritarian. According to Marx, capitalist cooperation is not the 

same as two little kids helping each other with chores to be able to play video games sooner. 

Minaret and Raleigh [2003fa:469] point out that “Capitalist co-operation is forced upon the 

worker, who has no say in the process him/herself.” Control over the worker is furthered 

by what Marx terms a “special kind of wage-labourer. (pg. 450)” These laborers relieve


the capitalist not only from the labor itself, but also the direct supervision of the production 

laborers. 

Marx compares the function of these laborers to a real army with officers that “command 

during labour process in the name of capital.” Supervision on behalf of the capitalist further 

limits the freedom of the laborers. 

The cooperation system benefits the capitalist in that the laborers are subject to the authority 

of the capitalist. The laborer sells to the capitalist his or her own labor-power. The 

capitalist pays for and then owns the labor-power of that worker, along with the labor-power 

of each laborer he hires. However, the capitalist does not pay for the combined labor-power. 

Once they begin the production process, only then does cooperation take place and the result 

is a combined production power that the capitalist did not pay for. This combined production 

power is a free gift to the capitalist in that the capitalist only paid for individual labor-powers, 

which as has been established, is far less than the productive power of the many laborers. 

The laborers are embedded in the capital. 

Marx introduces a common comparison between capitalist cooperation and the way large 

ancient structures came about. He notes the astonishing cooperative labor-power that built, 

for example, the Egyptian pyramids. The important difference is that in the capitalist cooperation 

system, the laborers are not forced into their role by slavery, but by need, and in fact, 

the laborers voluntarily sell their labors to the capitalist. 

In sum, the social form of labor is the method used by capitalists to increase the profits 

of exploitation, which comes about from the increased productive power. Cooperation is 

fundamental to the capitalist mode of production. 

Hans: You are going too much into the details and do not pay enough attention to the grand lines of the argument. 

For instance, you correctly remark that it is odd that Marx waits 5 pages before bringing the definition of cooperation. 

But this has a reason, and you do not explore this reason. Although most of your summaries of the 

individual arguments are ok, you are not looking at all at it how these arguments hang together. 


[1278] Robgodfell, Jingle, and ADHH: graded A Cooperation and the birth of Capitalist 

Production. Capital Volume One, Chapter 13: Co-operation 

Overview 

Marx defines cooperation as “numerous workers who work together side by side in accordance 

with a plan, whether in the same process, or in different, but connected processes” 

[443:1]. Cooperation is an arrangement of collective work of a relatively large number of 

workers into working days that permit the workers to produce at a higher output than otherwise 

possible as individuals or other small groups; and most importantly which causes the 

costs of production to decrease, and surplus value to increase via the “social power of labor.” 

[443:2] Marx calls this the “Act of Capital.” [449:1/o] Cooperation can exist without the 

capitalists, but it is very unlikely that it will happen, or it would occur only on a “dwarf-like 

scale.”[443:2] 

Marx gives three reasons to why the cooperated workers will produce more than the individual 

worker: (1) job specialization - Job specialization is when only one worker is concerned 

with only one stage of the production process (specialization is possible even when 


multiple parties perform the same labor, more to come in following summary). For example, 

if the workers are making robots they will have one person that will assemble the head of the 

robot, another to nail the head to the body, one to polish the robot, etc. The worker does just 

one task and does that same task over and over again. This is the equivalent of an assembly 

line. (2) There is competition in the workplace. When people work together they are always 

in competition, and this will cause the workers to produce more goods in a short amount 

of time than would individualized labor. Marx introduces a concept which he refers to as 

“animal spirits,” which means that the eagerness of an individual or the group to keep up 

with the highest producing members of their team. (3) Omnipresence: This simply means 

that there will always be someone present to oversee every stage of the production process. 

Omnipresence is only possible in cooperation labor, and not in individual labor.[p447-450] 

There are always advantages and disadvantages to the capitalist for having cooperation. 

Some advantages are: the capitalist holds the advantage of increased production and profit. 

The capitalist will have a lower cost of production. (Once the labor force has become a cooperative, 

they can all work in one building instead individual buildings, and the individual 

doesn’t need his own equipment). They can meet most time and space restrictions. Cooperation 

does not only increase the productive powers of the individual, but most importantly it 

creates “labor of a socially average character.” The capitalist benefits from these social productive 

powers, but capitalist do not have to pay for them as a collective labor-power, but as 

individual labor-power based on individual contractual agreements (the capitalist hires each 

worker individually for an individual wage). 

Once the capitalist has supervision and control of their laborers, exploitation of the laborer 

is exacerbated. Some disadvantages of this arrangement are: Cooperation requires a 

supervisor. Managers or supervisors are not adding anything to the production process (they 

are not creating any good or helping make that good, except for the fact that they may add 

to the productivity of the social labor, therefore theoretically adding a portion of their own 

labor-power to the collective). These overseers are necessary to make sure that the sometimes 

disparate stages of production run smoothly and coherently, at additional cost to the 

capitalist. Despite the increased capital outlay requirements for the means of production to 

support a large group of cooperative laborers, the capitalist gains enormously from this form 


Full Summary 

Chapter 13, begins with Marx reiterating-“as we have already seen [Marx: 439]”- that 

capitalist production is “merely an enlargement of the workshop of the craftsman of the 

guilds [439].” This enlargement consists of “individual capital” employing a relatively large 

number of workers, producing on an “extensive scale,” and producing a relatively large 

quantity of products. It appears that the difference in manufacturing and the handicraft 

trades is then purely quantitative. 

Marx explains that it isn’t the number of workers that affect the rate of surplus value 

or exploitation of labor-power because “in the production of value a number of workers 

merely rank as so many individual workers [439].” And whether or not 1200 workers toil 

together under the “command” of one capitalist or separately it makes no difference in the


value produced. Curiously, however, we wonder if this holds true if one were to consider 

production processes that require more than one laborer (a minimum requirement if you 

will), i.e. certain manual labor requiring multiple hands in assistance, or assembly lines, oil 

platforms, etc. Perhaps this discrepancy could be avoided if one assumed such labor pools to 

be ontologically considered as single laboring units, or if the division of labor then created 

distinct points in the production process which could then be considered delineated and thus 

disparate production processes and therefore uninfluenced by co-operation? Or what of the 

competitive nature of men when they work in factories or on assembly lines, and they see 

their fellow worker laboring at a rate greater than their own? Would they not then be inclined 

to increase their own production rate, perhaps as mere challenge to their companions or even 

for wage considerations of the domineering capitalist at the helm? 

Marx reminds us that the labor objectified within any value is an “expression of average 

labor-power [440].” And that this average while on individual basis may have comparative 

differences (what he calls ‘errors,’ borrowing from mathematics) whenever a minimum 

number of workers are employed, said differences will “compensate each other and vanish 

[440].” One day of average social labor is taken by the collective working day, divided by 

the number of workers. 

Marx uses the example of 12 hours for an individual worker, and 12 men simultaneously 

employed thus makes 144 hours (the collective working day) and despite the fact that 

there may occur within the production divergences of average social labor (each requiring 

a slightly different time to produce an equal value) “the working day of every one possess 

the qualities of an average social working day, because it forms one-twelfth of the collective 

working day of 144 hours [440].” So, for the capitalist it doesn’t matter if the laborers help 

one another in their work, or merely work for the same capitalist because the working day is 

that of the full dozen. 

Yet, Marx elucidates, if these same 12 men are employed in 6 pairs for “small masters,” 

then it will be a matter of chance if values converge and a general rate of surplus-value is 

indeed achieved. “A fixed minimum of efficiency in all labor is assumed [441],” because if it 

were otherwise, the man’s labor-power which deviated above the average social labor-time 

required for his production would either be “unsaleable (sic) or saleable only at less than the 

average value of labor-power [441].” 

These inequalities, say between the six small masters would be averaged out and equal 

to average social labor, however one master would “squeeze” more surplus from one group 

of laborers than another master would from his own; however, for a society as a whole the 

inequalities would be cancelled and the capitalist will pay the average value of labor-power. 

And the “law of valorization” (whereby a surplus value has been created [252]) only occurs 

when the individual producer produces as a capitalist (he owns the means of production and 

purchases labor-power below the value of labor employed in a working day) and employs 

a number of workers simultaneously so that he can acquire “labor of a socially average 

character [441].” 

The “objective conditions” of the labor process, when there is employment in relatively 

large quantities, are revolutionized in that there are portions of the means of production 


jointly consumed in the labor process. It is when these means of production are consumed 

in common that “the value of a part of the constant capital falls [442],” and in such proportion 

the “total value of the commodity falls [442].” This is as if the means of production had cost 

less; and this only arises out of joint consumption of those means. 

Two considerations must be made concerning joint consumption: (1) Insomuch as it 

cheapens commodities, it thereby brings a fall in the value of labor power. (2) The altered 

ratio of surplus value to total capital advanced (sum of the values of its constant and variable 

components[442]). However, point 2 has been relegated to Volume 3 of Capital. 

Another “false consciousnesses [Ehrbar: 423]” has permeated the minds of the labor in 

that he feels that the efficiency found in the means of production when multiple laborers 

are employed “side-by-side in accordance to a plan [Marx: 443]” (thus called co-operation) 

are of a separate operation removed from him; and that the resultant personal productivity 

increase is not related to said efficiency in numbers! Marx politely answers our aforementioned 

question concerning ontological considerations of co-operative forces which either 

could not produce on an individual scale or individually would only be able to produce on 

a very “dwarf-like scale” (Marx, in footnote 4 pg. 443, uses E.G. Wakefield’s instancing of 

“lifting of a large tree on a wain” (sic). . . everything, in short which cannot be done unless 

a great many pairs of hands help each other in the same undivided employment. . . ). . . This 

“increase in the productive power of the individual, by means of co-operation. . . [443]” also 

produces a new productive power, which Marx calls a “collective” one. The competitive 

nature question that we posited earlier is also answered here and is referred to as “‘animal 

spirits’ which heightens the efficiency of each individual worker [443],” causing larger 

groups of laborers to produce far more in their collective working day than either those who 

12 who work for 12 hours or one man who works for 12 days sequentially. 

Marx also discusses how a partial division of labor is possible even when the workers are 

doing the same labor as the next (simple form of common labor [445]), such as a line of masons 

passing a brick up a line to arrive much quicker to its destination in the bricklaying than 

would have occurred if they had of proceeded individually in such labor. Furthermore, many 

tasks require a combination of many working days 100 men working for 12 hours to harvest 

before a winter freeze. It is this combined working day which produces a “greater quantity 

of use-values than an equal sum of isolated working days and consequently diminishes the 

labor-time necessary for the production of a given useful effect [447].” 

It is through all these combined effects that cooperative labor, be it an increased force 

of labor (many men to lift one object), ability to cover larger amounts of space in required 

time frames (a harvest), awaken man’s sense of animal spirit, makes efficient the means of 

production through common usage, etc. all contribute to what Marx calls the “productive 

power of social labor. . . and develops the capabilities of his species [447].” The scale of cooperation 

is therefore constrained by the amount of capital that an individual capitalist (or 

in the case of corporations or business with multiple investors) can spare for the purchase of 

labor-power. Also the material constraints of constant capital (means of production) which 

Marx uses the example of an outlay of raw materials for the capitalist who will employ 300 

men being thirty times as great for the thirty capitalist who employ ten men each. It is the 

small master who can acquire enough surplus-labor to break free of manual labor himself


and become a capitalist and establish the capital-relation [448]. It is only by the minimum 

material conditions being met for independent and isolated processes to be made into one 

combined social process. “That a capitalist should command in the field of production is 

now as indispensable as that a general should command on the field of battle [448].” 

The capitalist “direction” is two fold in nature: (1) a social labor process; and (2) capital’s 

process of valorization. And it is “purely despotic [450].” This despotism is manifest 

in the officers (managers) and non-commissioned officers (overseers, foremen) who must 

command and direct the production process in the name of capital [450]. “It is not because 

he is a leader of industry that a man is a capitalist; on the contrary, he is a leader of industry 

because he is a capitalist [450].” 

The capitalist benefits greatly from this cooperative workforce first and foremost in the 

fact that he only pays the laborer for his individual labor-power, not his combined social 

labor power. And once the laborer has made this bargain with the capitalist the workers 

are in effect, isolated. Their relation with each other begins with the labor process; and 

by then they have already ceased to belong to themselves (alienation of the self via sale 

of the self). Together in cooperative acts, Marx formulates, they form a “particular mode 

of existence of capital [451].” The workers become a form of capital themselves! And the 

socially productive powers therein are as a “free gift.” 

Here Marx diverges into an explanation of the power of the social labor that was necessary 

for such Asiatic and Egyptian Monarchs to produce their monuments, grand palaces, and 

earth moving schemes. But the connection is drawn that the power of these former Kings 

has been transferred to the capitalist. Whereas in pre-modern times, such cooperative acts 

rested on servitude and for the most part domination through slavery, modern cooperative 

acts presupposes the “free wage-laborer who sells his labor power to capital [452].” It is 

thus that “cooperation itself appears as a historical form peculiar to. . . the capital’s process 

of production [453].” 

We’ve come full circle as Marx reminds us that it is this concomitant employment of a 

large number of workers on the same process forms the starting point of capitalist production 

and in fact “coincides with the birth of capital itself [453].” It is thus the capitalist mode of 

production which is necessary to transform the labor process into a social one; and this 

social process is the means by which the capitalist is able to squeeze more surplus from, 

exploit more efficiently by the increase of his productive power, the interminably unfortunate 

worker. 

Hans: Some of your details are off. Your page number references are sloppy; many page numbers are incorrect. 

Your first reference to the quote with the dwarf-like scale is blatantly misrepresented. 

However I give you credit for at least trying to put the many details into an coherent framework. 

About your objection regarding the assembly lines and oil platforms: the reason of the discrepancy is that you 

are talking about use-value requirements of production, while Marx is talking about value. Although an assembly 

line with one worker only would not be possible, the workers produce value in the same way as if they were solitary 

workers. 

It is not false consciousness but the realities of capitalist exploitation that the co-operating workers do not 

organize themselves but they are organized by the capitalist hiring them, who therefore reaps all the benefits of this 

organization. 

Message [1278] referenced by [1416] and [1521]. Next Message by Robgodfell is [1331]. 


[1281] Legolas, Surferboy, and Tink: ch. 13 term paper ‘cooperation’. “When numerous 

workers together side by side in accordance with a plan, whether in the same process, or 

in different but connected processes, this form of labor is called ‘cooperation.’” 

The power of the collective is more important than the individual, capitalist production 

requires cooperation. It requires the capitalist to employ many workers, laboring and producing 

on a large scale at the same time. The quantity of workers will not change the relative 

surplus, and even though within any given workshop all laborers will differ from the “average” 

worker, these “errors” will eventually cancel each other out. Marx refers to Edmund 

Burke when he suggests that “any given five adults farm laborers taken together will do as 

much work in the same time as any other five.” 

If 12 laborers work for the same capitalist, then each individual man’s day is an aliquot 

part of the collective part of the collective working day. Marx gives this example to suggest 

that if these same twelve men worked for 6 different masters in pairs of two, then the value 

produced will be highly variable for each individual capitalist. It would eventually even 

out for society, but not within each individual group. For the producer, to reap the average 

surplus value requires that he should employ many workers simultaneously, and thus his 

labor will become socially average. 

When many workers together use the same means of production, then that means of production 

is being utilized on a large scale. Marx discusses the room in which they might work 

and illustrates that if one large room contains ten looms and weavers, and another contains 

20, the cost of the 20 weavers is less than the cost for 2 rooms of ten. Marx exaggerates this 

situation by illustrating that 10 rooms of 2 laborers would be much cheaper to build than one 

room of 20. Cooperation is an economical means of production. It cheapens commodities 

and decreases the value of labor power. 

When labor is organized it is by far more beneficial to the capitalist and produces more 

capital. For example a farmer with a corn field works for 12 hours, he is all alone laboring. 

For him to harvest the whole field it may take up to a month depending on the field. Since 

corn is perishable the fruits of his labor are only beneficial to him on a daily basis. If he 

decides to hire more labor he can harvest the whole field and not lose any corn. Let’s say that 

the capitalist hires 12 laborers, that is 144 hours of labor a day. All the corn that would have 

gone bad can now be sold, more capital means more money. The co-operation allows for 

work to be employed over a large region that a single farmer couldn’t harvest himself before 

the corn would have become rotten. The combined working day produces a greater quantity 

of capital and increases productivity. Cooperation serves as a function of preservation and 

efficiency. Waste is obliterated through cooperation. 

Workers (laborers) can’t cooperate unless they are brought together. The capitalist employs 

them, and pays them on maybe a daily or weekly basis. Workers would not work for 

the capitalist if he doesn’t have sufficient capital evident to support their wages. For a capitalist 

to emerge and draw himself away from the laborers, he must have sufficient capital to 

establish a capital-relation instead of being a glorified small master. Necessary for cooperation 

is equal wages among the laborers. A capitalist that employs 100 laborers independently 

has created separation, but the workers will eventually cooperate to produce the commodity


that the capitalist wants produced. “Their cooperation only begins with the labor process, 

but by then they have ceased to belong to themselves.” 

Capital is main component of labor. It is what brings the wage laborers to the capitalist 

and what makes the capitalist a capitalist and not a small master. When the laborers cooperate 

they produce capital that is beneficial to the capitalist. In the early days of the United 

States, slavery was a practice used before the full development of capitalism, as with most 

capital economies today. The master in the slave scenario is the despot which is no different 

than the function a capitalist in cooperation scenario where his main job is to exploit. 

Marx gives the example of an army on a battlefield to explain supervision of the wagelaborer. 

The army officer’s exclusive function is to be a supervisor and the cooperation of 

the army under the officer’s control as the capitalist is necessary for the success of the army 

on the battlefield. The officer’s main motive is victory as is the capitalist except his motive 

is capital (money). 

Capital however is exploitative to the laborers. Although it is beneficial to the capitalist 

and when cooperation is in play and much surplus is achieved, the laborer is reduced to 

a mere apparatus of the capital he has produced. The capitalist is benefiting greatly from 

the surplus while the laborer is still receiving the bad end of the deal and only getting the 

bare minimum and sometimes less than what his wage labor is worth. Surplus and greed 

drives the capitalist to exploit the labor to produce more capital so that he can make a bigger 

profit. Marx states that, “As the number of the co-operating workers increases, so too 

does their resistance to the domination of capital and, necessarily, the pressure put on by 

capital to overcome this resistance.” This tells us that cooperation will lead to exploitation 

because capital equals power, thus eventually killing itself when the proletariat has enough 

cooperation to overthrow the capitalist bourgeoisie. 


[1338] Dandy: Ch. 13 term paper discussion. Term paper [1268] was an informative 

paper which covered Chapter Thirteen: Cooperation thoroughly. They begin by explaining 

that “when each individual capital simultaneously employs a comparatively large number of 

workers” they are able to yield large quantities of product. The paper does not give a concise 

definition of Cooperation until the middle. It states that Co-operation is “when numerous 

workers working side by side in accordance with a plan, whether in the same process, or 

in different but connected processes.” Other than this the paper covers all aspects of Marx 

Chapter 13. 

I feel that one could delve into the human aspect of cooperation a little more. I find it interesting 

to view the traits of the “individual” labor as opposed to the “number of workmen, 

laboring together.” The individual is a free agent who owns his labor-power until he has bargained 

that individual, isolated power to an employer. At this point he is his own master. As 

Marx states: “As a general rule, laborers cannot co-operate without being brought together: 

their assemblage in one place is a necessary condition of their co-operation.” The capitalist, 

on the other hand, is one who has to have the capacities of amassing large resources of wages 

and raw materials to be able to hire many laborers. If he does not have this ability his is no 

better than a laborer of possible a small tradesman with a few assistants. I would have to 

believe that there is a social difference in those who labor and the capitalist. 


At the point a laborer enters the relationship with the capitalist, he becomes incorporated 

with a working organism. It states there is a basic difference between labor and capitalist. 

This is that the laborer does not develop the productive power before his labor belongs to 

capital, it appears as a power with which capital is endowed by Nature, a productive power 

that is immanent in capital. It is interesting that in early history, slavery was a form of 

co-operation that used the relations of dominion and servitude. 

The paper does mention the synergy that is involved with a group of workmen. They state 

that, “Humans enjoy the company of others and when together their animal spirits, as Marx 

describes, heighten their efficiency.” This is not the only reason for increased productivity 

in groups. People who work together can provide each other with support and positive 

feedback, also capital has promoted a sense of “rivalry” which stimulates the “animal spirit” 

to produce more work. 

Another “human” aspect of co-operation is a sense of antagonism, which develops between 

the laborer and capitalist. The paper does state that because of the authority exerted 

over the laborers, they have no freedom of their own. “This lack of freedom is what Marx 

terms despotism, inferring that capitalist cooperation is authoritarian.” It could also be stated 

that “The control exercised by the capitalist is not only a special function arising from the 

nature of the social labor process and peculiar to that process, but it is at the same time 

a function of the exploitation of a social lab our process, and is consequently conditioned 

by the unavoidable antagonism between the exploiter and the raw material of exploitation.” 

(449) 

This was a well-written, informative paper. I am also interested in the “human” side of 

the equation. 

Hans: Good comments. You look at the situation from an interesting angle. By the way, since you are using the 

term “rivalry,” please read [2002fa:331]. 


[1402] Hans: Not seeing the forest for the trees. Many term papers received so far, 

and also many available in the archives, follow the same formula: they reproduce Marx’s 

arguments one by one as they find them in the text. But they are missing one important 

ingredient: they do not extract, from the multitude of individual arguments, the overall story 

Marx is trying to tell. 

Marx constructs his texts carefully, but if one reads Marx extremely carefully one will 

discover that many of these texts tell interesting stories. The story told in chapter 13 is 

approximately the following: 

Originally, the capitalists did not introduce co-operation because of technology, but for 

the simple reason that each capitalist needed several wage-laborers in order to get enough 

surplus-value to be able to be full-time capitalists. 

But once co-operation was in place, it reacted back on the capitalist relations in a way 

which solidified them: it raised the minimum amount of capital necessary for someone to be 

a capitalist, it increased the authority of the capitalist since he also became the director of the 

co-operative labor process, and it opened new profit opportunities by allowing the capitalists 

to exploit the “social productive powers” of the workers’ joint labor.


Capitalist exploitation and the co-operative nature of the labor process are therefore a 

contradictory pair. On the one hand, they fit together really well, on the other, they are 

irreconcilable enemies. Somewhere, not in chapter 13, Marx says that by forcing the workers 

to work together capital organizes the force which will eventually overturn it. At the end of 

chapter 13, Marx draws out the implications of this dialectic as follows: while capitalism 

uses co-operation as a means to increase its profits, in the overall historical development 

co-operation is not the means but the end, and capitalism the means by which the human 

labor process obtains its co-operative form. 

(The next point on the historical agenda is therefore to cast off capitalism which has 

fulfilled its historical mission, so that we can benefit from the miraculous powers of human 

co-operation unencumbered by the primitive profit motive. But this is my own addition, 

Marx does not say this explicitly in chapter 13.) 

MrPink: With all due respect, in some regards this class has become the blind leading the blind. 

This is hard stuff to read, let alone extrapolate hidden meanings. You yourself have mentioned how ingrained 

capitalism is in our everyday lives. 

I find it difficult to step outside my world and look at it through Marx’s eyes without more experienced guidance. 

I cannot speak for others but I am less willing to take risks in my submissions when there is the potential of 

getting a poor grade. 


[1416] Hans: Competition today and in the 1970s. Term paper [1278] is asking: 

What of the competitive nature of men when they work in factories or on 

assembly lines, and they see their fellow worker laboring at a rate greater 

than their own? Would they not then be inclined to increase their own 

production rate, perhaps as mere challenge to their companions or even for 

wage considerations of the domineering capitalist at the helm? 

I worked on the assembly line in Detroit for Chrysler 1972–1979 (trying to organize 

workers), and my experience was the following: Occasionally a young inexperienced worker 

in the prime of their strength started out working too fast, i.e., at an unsustainable rate. 

Instead of trying to outdo him, the other workers will typically take him aside and explain to 

him that he must slow down. 

But this was in the 1970s in the Union Town Detroit. What is your experience with such 

situations in Salt Lake City in 2005? If you would like to answer this question, I would count 

this as a term paper discussion. Use question number 813. This question number will be 

accepted from now on through December 4. (If you want to make an ungraded submission, 

write ::Q: 813 ug) 

Message [1416] referenced by [1502], [1721], [2007SP:924], [2007fa:680], [2008fa:1257], and [2010fa:477]. Next 

Message by Hans is [1417]. 

[1460] Robgodfell: graded A Endemic Competition. My own experiences with overexertion/unsustainable 

rates whether in the school, work, military, and even my love life have 

almost unambiguously been meet with “congrats” and “keep it up.” (Pun not-intended) It 

seems that the neo-classical economic adage of “more is better” has followed me throughout 

my “years” and in fact has been my maxim. More work, more love, money, better grades, 

so that I could be better than thou. 


In elementary school it was who could finish the multiplication and division tables the 

quickest was then rewarded with his/her paper stapled to the smart column or something 

like it on the wall with the time trial proudly exhibited (thus deemed “more” intelligent. . . I 

rarely if never entered into the top in those competitions. . . my finger counting didn’t work 

fast enough and my shoes inhibited me from utilizing my toes with the outcome usually 

having forgotten which end of the pencil I was even supposed to use). 

In my experiences with my youth group, it was always when I worked so hard/or promised 

the most work even so that I was facing “early burnout” it exemplified to the chapter my/our 

greatest chance of success which allowed me election to a position/office of leadership. 

The time I spent working on many different Kibbutzim (the remnants of the once great 

socialist experiment in Israel) I was always lauded for my extra effort and the volunteer 

leader was told that if they only had more workers like me the kibbutz would pull itself out 

of the debt that it had fallen into. No one said: “smoke more, work less” (unless I was 

near exhaustion from heat stroke, which to my bosses only proved my abilities which in fact 

allowed me breaks; because they knew I’d continue working just as hard when I resumed). 

My time in the Airborne (being that this concerns the military I wonder if this even 

counts, considering that it is akin to a consigned slavery. . . however I did receive a salary 

so effectively I freely entered into a wage-contract labor-power selling machination) was 

always meet with rewards for my prowess and I was twice given most excellent soldier 

recognition from the commander of the entire brigade and targeted for officer school. 

It is hard at times like that to imagine anyone telling me to take it easy, relax, hey bro 

you’re just going to wear yourself out chill.. . . they always gave some additional advice to everyone 

else to endeavor to match my effort. (My drive even extended to Kitchen Duty/Patrol: 

no one wanted to get assigned with me because they said that I was more exacting than 

the base commander in charge of discipline when it came to cleanliness. . . that might seem 

somewhat humorous to some, but I am sure my roommate stands over my bed at night with 

his pillow in hand and struggles with the devil not to suffocate me. . . some in my squad however, 

took it as a good thing my being overly anal because it allowed many to escape the 

work themselves because they knew I’d pick up their slack). . . where was I asked to slow 

down? 

Now it occurs to me that this whole thing sounds like I am touting my own horn, bragging, 

showing off, etc. etc (if Hans had of asked for a list of personal faults and shortcomings I’d 

have to publish the damn thing in volumes) but I still apologize. 

I honestly don’t mean it as arrogance, but as a means to see how my entire upbringing 

in the US and other Westernized societies (no matter what “human face” the French think 

that they’ve added to their capitalism) rewards the struggles for achievement and besting 

your peers. Have we ever received compliments like: “Hey Mr. Jones you really did an 

average job, not to fast, not to slow, not distinguished in any way shape or form; I swear, 

by Jove, you will do middle management proud! Hey class, I’d like everyone to try and 

achieve mediocrity like Jonesy here.” Or how about: “Wow, Thomas that was some of the 

most delayed responses we’ve had in class in some time. You ever consider minimumwage?” 

or even the less polemic: “Even though you missed every deadline, had everything


explained twice, you finally understood and made the greatest contribution, just at a different 

pace.” The first or at most the second deadline probably did us in. “Just give me a fourth 

chance. . . please.” Competition seems so inbred: How many of us were the result of the 

sperm which came in second? 

Almost all of us, have to fight with the well-rewarded desire to be deemed “better”, 

“great”, “good” whatever qualifying remark that floats our boat, our manager’s boat, or our 

relationships: “So in terms of your others. . . um. . . How was I?” We are never allowed to be 

at peace with ourselves, our own natural performances, our animal instincts are constantly 

tweaked to get that ever last drop of value out of us. . . and we gladly line up for inspection. 

I wonder if the Chrysler plant is still the same, with all the manufacturing jobs that have 

been outsourced to take advantage of cheaper labor-power? Or if in this era of intensified 

competition, uncertainty, and weakened unions, if workers don’t labor ever harder so that 

the CEO doesn’t up and decide to move South and get someone who knows what the value 

of a minimum-wage job really is without all that messiness of organized labor? 

“So little Asian child, why are you chained to your workstation?...Um. . . I get lost real 

easy. . . ” 

The whip falls sooner if anything. 

Message [1460] referenced by [2007SP:924]. Next Message by Robgodfell is [1466]. 

[1502] Ace: graded A In response to Hans’s question [1416] about working on the assembly 

line, I believe that there are not many differences between then and now. I have had 

a similar experience in the workplace. I was on a cleaning crew, at a high rise building in 

downtown Salt Lake City, where we had to clean the whole building every night. There were 

3 different crews that all worked in an assembly line type of arrangement where one crew 

would clean a certain part of the building before the next crew could continue on cleaning 

the next part on the building. This was my first time working a graveyard shift and I was 

going to school all day as well. I had just come from starting my own business, so I had a 

strong work ethic and worked hard and fast. At the beginning, I thought everyone was just 

really slow and lazy, and I even got offended when my crew leader came to me and told me 

that I should slow down. 

He told me that I would never be able to continue working at the same pace for longer 

than a couple of weeks. So at first I took it as a challenge, and the whole first month I kept 

the same pace, and after that I just started for fall in productivity. So what happened was 

I had to slow my original work pace just so I could continue to work at level that would 

be acceptable to the supervisor. The whole crew then worked at a pace that was socially 

acceptable to the employer. The interesting thing is that I actually found myself telling the 

next new person about my experiences and hopefully helping them. Working at a level that 

is too high to maintain will come to damage the worker in the long run. The worker will 

not be able to keep up with the socially acceptable productivity level and end up decreasing 

his output in the end. There are also long term effects because the worker could damage 

his ability to work because of the conditions right now, there could be physical and mental 

disabilities coming from such working conditions. I believe now that my crew leader was 

trying to do me a favor and save my physical and mental health from any type of long term 


damage where I would not be able to care for my family. This not only comes to benefit 

me but also the capitalist that I am working for, because I will be able to work for a longer 

amount of time as compared to just the short run. 

Message [1502] referenced by [2007SP:924]. Next Message by Ace is [1503]. 

[1521] Rudy: graded A Competition Now vs. 1970s. I also wanted to respond to Hans’ 

experience on the difference between the 1970s Detroit and our current experience in present 

day Salt Lake City. Hans’ description of the situation on the assembly line is a contrast with 

my own anecdotal experiences as a bike messenger for a downtown law firm. Granted, it 

was a part-time job and of course there was no Union for bike messengers. My firm was 

located on Fourth South and Main street and a normal day’s “runs” included a trip north on 

Main street to make deliveries and get signatures on legal documents followed by a trip with 

those documents to the various courts. There were a couple other messengers at my firm 

and several others from firms and services close to mine. Because we all ended up in line 

at the same place, waits at the courthouse could last quite a while. For this reason, these 

daily trips became an all-out race. Dodging Trax trains, Utah drivers, and each other, in the 

pursuit of being the first one to the courts and the first one to finish. In our minds, our bosses, 

the attorneys, looked favorably on those messengers that could get the job done quickly and 

accurately. 

The term paper by Robgodfell, Jingle, and ADHH [1278] gave a quote that reminded me 

of our daily Tour De France up Main Street, it reads, “Marx introduces a concept which he 

refers to as ‘animal spirits,’ which means that the eagerness of an individual or the group 

to keep up with the highest producing members of their team.” Though I obviously have 

no data on this, I can only suppose that our daily sprint around town “revolutionized the 

social production process” in the sense that the time needed to produce the equivalent of our 

wage was now smaller. For the victor of this race was there a prize in the form of money or 

something else? Did we get to go home because we finished earlier? Was there even some 

kind of verbal praise? The answer is no. We were only rewarded with, of course, more work. 

Our haste to complete the trip around town resulted in enough time left in the workday to 

make nearly the entire trip again. I say “our” because it wasn’t just me. I couldn’t help but 

make this comparison. I know this is not the case for every job in Salt Lake City, but I am 

now not as naive as to think I’d be rewarded with something other than more work. 

Message [1521] referenced by [2007SP:924]. Next Message by Rudy is [1549]. 

[1611] Bosox: I believe that regardless of the day of age workers will always tend to 

want to do better than the rest. It is human nature to want to impress our employers and 

co-workers and even ourselves. We want to do well and initially we believe we have to go 

100 miles an hour to do so or else we won’t succeed. Competition is also a big part of human 

nature, no matter what we’re doing, whether it’s in sports, school, or work we always want 

to know that we are doing better than the rest. It is a powerful drive and motivator for us to 

have, it enables us to succeed in ways where otherwise we would have failed had we lacked 

the competitive fire. 

Of course, as time continues we begin to see that we are unable to continue at our current 

“unsustainable rate” and we begin to tire and slow down. If continued long enough a worker 

will experience physical, mental, and emotional problems. Lack of sleep, stress, exhaustion 

etc. are all causes to serious problems to our bodies which are caused by overworking.


Capitalists in general love their hardworkers and I’d say in most cases care about their 

workers. This is coming from my experience of having great employers. But overall, outside 

of Salt Lake, I’d think it would be safe to say that most capitalist employers are driven more 

by the almighty dollar than the health of their worker. Understanding this most workers 

would strive to impress their employers to their own limits, to an unfortunate end. 

Message [1611] referenced by [2007SP:924]. Next Message by Bosox is [1716]. 

[1721] DarkKnight: graded A Discussion on co-workers slowing each other down. In 

[1416], Hans mentioned a time in his career as an auto worker when “young inexperienced 

worker in the prime of their strength started out working too fast, i.e., at an unsustainable 

rate. Instead of trying to outdo him, the other workers will typically take him aside and 

explain to him that he must slow down.” 

I had a similar experience, though the underlying motives were a little different. In my 

line of work, as a bill collector, we are required to maintain a certain level of production, 

measured by the number of accounts worked in a day and ratio of customer contact among 

those accounts. Three of us handle a particular pool of accounts. There is a premium bonus 

paid to those who achieve a targeted production score. Several months ago, one of my coworkers 

decided she wanted to earn that reward, come hell or high water. So she began 

to find ways to work a greater number of accounts on a daily basis. Typically, this meant 

leaving some of the more time-consuming aspects of our job (such as calling references, 

locating customers who desire to remain hidden, or even just calling all of the available 

contact phone numbers) to be completed by my other co-worker and myself. We call this 

behavior “creaming”. Since we are fairly lightly supervised, this sort of behavior can go 

unnoticed by management for a long time. I began to realize how she was achieving her 

good numbers and how they were negatively impacting the quality of work and my own 

productivity. So I took her aside to tell her she was being unfair to the rest of us and if others 

found her out, she could get in trouble. On the surface, I was telling a co-worker to slow 

down because she was working at a rate unsustainable that couldn’t be maintained by all 

of us. In reality, she wasn’t really working hard at all, only maintaining the appearance of 

hard work. In a Marxian view, she was putting less value into the work than was necessary, 

but was getting paid the regular wage (plus a bonus). This seems like a case of a worker 

exploiting the capitalist and her fellow workers. 

Message [1721] referenced by [2007SP:924]. Next Message by DarkKnight is [1723]. 

[1777] MarxSchmarx: graded A Cooperation and friendly competition. I would like 

to bring a different point of view into the discussion about co-operation and competition in 

the work place. In the world of real estate sales, there are three options that an agent can 

choose from in order to practice real estate. The first option is a traditional brokerage, where 

you give a percentage of your commissions to the owner of the brokerage. There are also 

brokerages that will allow an agent to keep 100% of their commissions, but a per transaction 

fee is charged by the owner of the brokerage. The third option is to obtain a broker’s license 

from the state so you can run your own brokerage. All three have advantages, and all three 

have disadvantages. My brokerage takes a percentage of my commission to help pay for the 

office’s overhead. This percentage of my income also compensates my broker for his efforts 

in running a successful business. In essence, while I am still self-employed, my broker can 

be seen as the capitalist in this situation. 


I once belonged to one of the 100% commission offices that I referenced above. Yes, the 

money per transaction was better, but there was little or no office support. I became tiresome 

having to pay for every copy I made on the copy machine, or page that I printed off of the 

printer. I switched to my current brokerage at the beginning of this year because I felt like 

I needed better marketing capabilities for my clients, and because I was growing tired of 

being nickled and dimed for every expense. 

An interesting thing happened shortly after I changed brokerages. I became busier and 

started doing more business. I made less per transaction than I would have at the other 

brokerage, but I was doing more transactions per month for more gross income. In my old 

office, there were never any other agents around. If by chance there were, they would be in a 

hurry or just stopping by to get their mail. In my new office, there were always other agents 

around to bounce ideas off of or to answer questions. I also started paying attention to how 

much business these other agents were doing. I started to realize that they were doing more 

business than I was, but appeared to be working “smarter”. By being able to measure myself 

up to these other agents, I was able to see where it was that I was falling short. 

All of the agents in my office are self-employed, and we all pay a percentage of our 

commissions to our broker. It does no financial good for any one of us to share ideas or to 

discuss the best way to handle issues. But, I think that we realize that by helping others, 

we can all become more successful and do more business. In this manner, competition and 

cooperation are beneficial to everyone who works out of the brokerage. 

It was only after I made the switch from my old office, that I realized how beneficial being 

around successful people can be. There are still a number of agents who make more than I 

do in the office, but I have raised myself further up on that list. I attribute this to a friendly 

sense of competition that I feel when talking to the other agents in my office. 

While this may not apply in the traditional production arena that we lean towards in our 

studies of Marx, I believe that there are many similarities in these businesses. The fact that 

I am in control of my own income is quite different from the traditional aspect of capitalism 

that we are investigating. It could loosely be said that I, as well as the other self-employed 

agents in my brokerage, are pseudo-capitalists. What I find a little unusual in my situation 

is that there are many pseudo-capitalists (agents) giving a portion of our income to another 

capitalist (our broker) in exchange for some of the means of production. At the same time, 

the agents are all helping each other become better agents. Because of this camaraderie, the 

pseudo-capitalists start making more money for themselves. The end result of this is that the 

“ultimate” capitalist (our broker) makes more money for himself when his agents cooperate 

and compete. 

Hans: The selling and buying of commodities requires work and also material resources (showrooms, information). 

This work does not create value, because it is work spent converting value from one form into another. But it has to 

be paid for, and those who perform this work have to get an income, and the nature of this work imposes specific 

modes of co-operation on the workers. 

Marx writes a little bit about this in Capital III in the chapters about merchant capital, but much more could be 

said. Your essay gives some of the materials which need to be explained by such a general theory. 

Message [1777] referenced by [1831] and [2007SP:924]. Next Message by MarxSchmarx is [1844].


Term Paper 814 is 914 in 1999SP, 814 in 2002fa, 814 in 2003fa, 623 in 2007SP, 612 in 


Term Paper 814 Essay about Chapter Fourteen: Division of Labor and Manufacture 

[1255] Bboarder, Picard, and Adamwest: A term paper regarding the Division of 

Labor. Manufacture came to existence through two modes, first through the union of specialized 

and independent handicrafts. For example a product of labor would be individual 

artificers working separate of each other to produce a carriage; however they were all under 

one roof in the same building. The second mode for the origin of manufacture was the 

division of a particular handicraft into small specific and specialized tasks which were independent 

of each other, which produced one commodity. “Capitalist employ simultaneously 

in one workshop a number of artificers, who all do the same, or the same kind of work.” 

Manufacture either divides labor or combines it, “but whatever may have been its particular 

starting-point, its final form is invariably the same productive mechanism whose parts 

are human beings.” 

There are specific points to the decomposition of labor that must take place for the division 

of labor to become manufacture. Whether complex or simple the operations must 

be done by hand. “Secondly, this division of labor is a particular sort of co-operation, and 

many of its advantages spring from the general character of co-operation, and not from this 

particular form of it” [457:2/o]. 

Concerning the division of labor within society and the division of labor in manufacture 

Marx writes that they each have different starting points which are diametrically opposed to 

each other. He illustrates this idea with an example of a family or tribe dividing itself by 

age and sex, which he terms as a physiological division, and many tribes or communities 

coming into contact with one another and exchanging goods. Here the family represents the 

workshops while the tribes exchanging with one another represent society. The exchange 

between communities brings them into a relation; they become interdependent while still 

being divided. Marx writes that the family who was divided first started whole, just as the 

manufacture of on commodity started whole and is now divided into different parts. On the 

other side of it we have the divided tribes who are now united by their dependence on one 

another by their trade. Marx continues with writing about the inverse relationship between 

society and manufacture. He believes that in order to have a division in manufacture there 

needs to be a certain level of division in society. In turn the division in manufacture has an 

effect on society, helping its division grow and multiply. Marx then writes that although the 

two divisions are linked they are totally different in degree and in kind. The major difference 

he cites is the fact that the different parts of society produce commodities while the separate 

workers in a factory do not. “It is only the common product of all the specialized workers that 

becomes a commodity.” Another difference is that the division of labor in society is mediated 

by the purchase and sale of the commodities each branches of industry produce, while in the 

workshop the division of labor is mediated by the sale of labor power of each worker to 

one man, the capitalist. Here the capitalist has total control and power, everything belongs 

to him. On the other hand society is divided into many independents who acknowledge no 

authority except for competition. Marx then criticizes those whom he calls the bourgeois. 

They are those who praise the division of labor in the workshop and the power the capitalist 


has over the workers. He criticizes them for not only that but also for being against any kind 

of control or regulation so beloved in the workshop on the society. In other words they love 

the way factories work but they don’t want society to turn into one. His final point on the 

subject is that the division of labor in society seems to be a natural occurrence and exists 

in many different cultures while the division of labor in manufacture is a fabrication of the 

capitalist. Through this natural occurence came the creation of the collective worker, who 

dramatically changed the production process and production time. 

The collective worker is the result of a group of specialized workers being combined 

to create a product all under a single capitalist. Due to an increased interest in shortening 

the labor time involved in manufacture the collective worker was created. Each specialized 

worker performs the same task over and over, when the work of all of these specialized 

workers are combined the product is complete. Each worker is vital to the production of 

the product. During the production process different qualities are needed to complete the 

process, some tasks require more strength, others may require better eye hand coordination. 

Each worker under this system is assigned the task that he excels the most at. By doing this 

each worker will be working at his fastest possible rate, cutting down labor time. It takes 

the deficiencies of each specialized individual worker and makes them obsolete. The group 

of workers as a whole begins to function as if they were parts of a machine, each working 

with the others, the end result is the collective worker resembling a machine. Since certain 

processes will take more skill than others, a wage scale is created according to the difficulty 

level of each task. 

Hans: By reporting the increases in efficiency caused by the extreme kind of division of labor which characterized 

the manufactures before the advent of machinery, and remaining silent about the damage this does to the worker 

you are misrepresenting Marx’s critical attitude about this whole issue. 

You also neglect to say, earlier in the paper, that the social control advocated by Marx was a rational organization 

of the social labor process which is not subordinate to capitalist enrichment. 

Even earlier, you mis-quoted Marx as saying that the “disadvantages” of division of labor spring from the 

general character of co-operation, and not from this particular form of it. The original text says “advantages”, 

although perhaps you have been using the Marxists Internet Archive, which has the same mistake at 

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch14.htm 

All these little biases conspire to depict Marx as an authoritarian enemy of technical progress, which is far from an 

accurate picture. 

Message [1255] referenced by [1325] and [2007SP:1051]. Next Message by Bboarder is [1279]. 

[1266] Tesa, SueGirl, Aaron, Astclair, and FranciscoVilla: The Division of Labour 

and Manufacture In Chapter 14, Marx dissects the nature and role of manufacturing from 

the 16th century to the 18th century. He classifies manufacturing as a particular sort of cooperation 

based on the division of labor among large numbers of specialized workers. With 

this increasing division of labor comes the increasingly narrow specialization of different 

operations within manufacture. Marx refers to this division of labor in manufacturing as a 

method of creating relative surplus value. Although this surplus value may be good for the 

capitalist, Marx reminds us that it has led to the decomposition of the craftsman. 

14.1 The Dual Origin of Manufacture In the beginning of this chapter, Marx states that 

manufacturing has a dual origin. From the masses, the capitalist draws labor from both the 

skilled and unskilled labor, along with varying laborers who share skills, as well as those 

who differ in their trades. Next, the capitalist gathers together the craftsman and the laborer 

in an effort to narrow their field of work down to individual tasks. These tasks are completed


in repetition by the laborers who each employ their skills without completing the finished 

article. Each operates their skills on a partially completed product. The manufacturing 

process is continually specialized and divided down into smaller processes, and through this 

an increase in quantity is achieved, thus outdating the craftsman (who can no longer compete 

on the manufacturing scale - either in price or in volume). 

14.2 The Specialized Worker and His Tools Marx then focuses on the simplest elements 

of manufacture - the specialized worker and his instruments. He begins with a discussion 

about the greater labor productivity of a one-sided specialized worker over the worker who 

performs a series of operations in succession. Marx states that attempting to complete an 

article from start to finish requires extra time in the form of tool changing, changing his 

position/place, and “[interrupting] the flow of his labor and [creating] gaps in his working 

day” (p.460, Marx). The one-sided specialized worker, on the other hand, exerts all of his 

energy into one specialized task and the task soon becomes perfected. He quickly learns 

how to obtain his desired result with a minimum amount of exertion. 

Although Marx admits that the specialized worker may have an advantage of speed and 

productivity over the craftsman (who performs every operation in production of an article), 

Marx considers the specialized worker to have a mental and physical disadvantage where 

his own quality of life is concerned. “Constant labor of one uniform kind disturbs the intensity 

and flow of a man’s vital forces, which find recreation and delight in the change of 

activity itself” (p.460, Marx). The following excerpt, written by author Jack London, further 

illustrates Marx’s belief: 

“It was simple work, the tying of glass stoppers into small bottles. At his 

waist he carried a bundle of twine. He held the bottles between his knees so 

that he might work with both hands. Thus, in a sitting position and bending 

over his own knees, his narrow shoulders grew humped and his chest was 

contracted for ten hours each day. This was not good for the lungs, but he 

tied three hundred dozen bottles a day.” 

“The superintendent was very proud of him and brought visitors to look at 

him. In ten hours three hundred dozen bottles passed through his hands. 

This means that he had attained machine-like perfection. All waste movements 

were eliminated. Every motion of his thin arms, every movement of 

a muscle in the thin fingers was swift and accurate. He worked at high tension, 

and the result was that he grew nervous. At night his muscles twitched 

in his sleep, and in the daytime he could not relax and rest. He remained 

keyed up and his muscles continued to twitch. Also he grew sallow and his 

lint-cough grew worse. The pneumonia laid hold of the feeble lungs within 

the contracted chest and he lost his job in the glass-works.” 

“There was no joyousness in life for him. The procession of the days he 

never saw. The nights he slept away in twitching unconsciousness. The rest 

of the time he worked, and his consciousness was machine consciousness. 

Outside this his mind was a blank. He had no ideals, and but one illusion; 

namely, that he drank excellent coffee. He was a work-beast.” 


“He had no mental life whatsoever; yet deep down in the crypts of his mind, 

unknown to him, were being weighed and sifted every hour of his toil, every 

movement of his hands, every twitch of his muscles, and preparations were 

making for a future course of action that would amaze him and all his little 

world.” (Jack London, “The Apostate” (1911), in Jack London, Revolution. 

Stories and Essays, London: Journeyman Press, 1979.) 

The crippling caused by highly specialized work has grown with capitalism. In addition, 

as workers become more specialized, so do their tools. Both the worker and the tool become 

perfected for a narrow task and that task only. Marx indicates that this specialization of 

worker and instrument is what characterizes manufacture. 

14.3 The Two Fundamental Forms of Manufacture In the third section of the chapter, 

Marx explains what he calls the two fundamental forms of the organization of manufacture. 

The first form is the assembly of partial products that were produced independently, and the 

second is formed by a “series of connected processes and manipulations” to form the end 

item. He primarily focuses on the second form in this section, as it seems that he feels it 

requires more explanation and is more intricate than the first. While he says that the two 

forms may overlap, they remain distinctly different from each other. 

Marx uses the example of a wristwatch to illustrate his first kind of genuine manufacture. 

He states, “the watch has been transformed into the social product of an immense number 

of detail laborers,” and goes on to list numerous detailed laborers who produce each of the 

parts that go into the making of the watch, noting that even the watch assembler is a separate 

detail laborer. In this example, it is stated that it is more cost effective because competition 

is greater among laborers who work from home (or independently), and by spreading out 

the work the capitalist saves on overhead. It is also pointed out, that even though the laborer 

works from home, he works for the capitalist. 

The second kind of manufacture produces items that go through sequential processes, 

which continuously run at the same time. The item passes through a series of connected 

phases, in the hands of various detail workmen, until completion. Each step in the process is 

referred to as a collective laborer, formed by detail laborers (the individuals). As soon as an 

item reaches its end point with one collective laborer it begins its starting point with a new 

one. It is necessary for each collective laborer to include the exact number of detail laborers 

needed to match the necessary labor time of all collective laborers in the process. This is 

necessary because different steps require different amounts of labor than others; therefore, 

some areas will need more or less detail laborers than others. 

This second process allows the collective laborers to run at a higher level of efficiency. 

Since different phases require different skills, detail laborers work in the areas in which 

they are most efficient. No individual can be equally skilled in all aspects of all phases of 

production; therefore, the individual is placed in the collective labor area in which he is 

most efficient. This also reduces the cost of apprenticeships, because now the individual 

only needs to be trained in one area of expertise rather than many. According to Marx this 

all benefits the capitalist; “for everything that shortens the necessary labor-time required for 

the reproduction of labor-power, extends the domain of surplus-labor.”


14.4 The Division of Labour in Manufacture and Society The fourth section discusses 

the division of labor in society, which is the very general classifications of production, for 

example, agriculture, textiles, construction etc. Each of these may be viewed as the trunk of 

a tree, each having a number of branches as sub-classifications, and twigs as division of labor 

within those sub-classifications. Construction, which entails anything from sheds to sky rise 

buildings, has within each of those sub categories a network of detailed tasks ranging from 

foreman to cement mixer. Labor within manufacture requires this simultaneous performance 

of tasks by the workers. 

The social division of labor which forms the foundation of all commodity production 

arises in two ways: 1.) the natural division of labor and 2.) division which arises from the 

exchange of products. 

First, the natural division of labor (physiological). A family or tribe may divide tasks 

by age or sex, according to their natural skills and abilities. In this case, the individual 

starts out dependent on the others in that family/tribe, until there is exchange with another 

family/tribe. Then they become independent. The task which they used to do for the good 

of the community becomes a task to produce a commodity to be exchanged. 

Second, the division arises from the exchange of products between two families or communities. 

An atomic family or tribe produces goods that are specific to their needs with 

the materials that are indigenous to their environment. When they come into contact with 

another community, which invariably produces differing goods, they begin exchanging. The 

exchange brings about the relation of the two communities, and therefore the independent 

families or tribes become dependent and a social division of labor forms. This social division 

of labor is catalyzed by density and communication within the community. For example, a 

doctor in a rural town might also be the local dentist and veterinarian in practice. And in a 

city, such as New York City, there is a multiplied division or distinction of labor. In New 

York any number of doctors specializing in very distinct and specific disciplines may be 

employed. 

These points are evidence of how the division of labor manifests itself naturally, and is 

exploited in the production of commodities in manufacture. What was once the activity of 

a skilled worker is later broken down to become the mundane repetition of a simple task by 

the unskilled worker. 

14.5 The Capitalist Character of Manufacture In order to continuously increase profits 

there must be increased production. Therefore to continue to increase production, a capitalist 

must control an increasing number of laborers. In the last section of Chapter 14, Marx talks 

about the division of labor concept in manufacturing as a means to improve production, to 

control laborers and to control labor costs. 

In order to increase production, the capitalist must use the previously set factors of labor 

division in adding additional laborers; these additional laborers must be added in the form of 

skilled groups of laborers as previously organized. In addition, division of labor diminishes 

the value of the laborer due to limiting his or her use of skill and interaction in the production 

process. Besides crippling the laborer in many aspects, division of labor gives the capitalist a 

greater control of the manufacturing process. Also, in order to avoid diminished returns, this 


increase in labor power must be met by an increase in other resources such as raw materials, 

machinery, property and structures. Thus the capitalist controls the masses of laborers. 

Karl Marx also talks about the collective working organism which is commonly seeing 

in manufacturing and in simple co-operation. All workers must perform in a synchronized 

manner with others in order to achieve the production goal. He also makes analogies that 

describe the worker as a motor or piece of machinery. He further equates the structure of the 

capitalist’s division of labor to the structure of religion. The laborer belongs to the capitalist 

as the chosen people belong to Jehovah. This very concept in its application breaks down 

the laborer in order to control him or her. “Ignorance is the mother of industry as well as 

of superstition.” The laborer can not and may not be an individual thinker. “To subdivide a 

man is to execute him, if he deserves the sentence, to assassinate him if he does not...The 

subdivision of labour is the assassination of a people (Section V, Marx).” 

“For preventing the complete deterioration of the great mass of the people by division 

of labour, A. Smith recommends education of the people by the State, but prudently, and 

in homeopathic doses.” G. Garnier, his French translator and commentator, who, under the 

first French Empire, quite naturally developed into a senator, quite as naturally opposes him 

on this point. “Education of the masses,” he urges, “violates the first law of the division of 

labour, and with it our whole social system would be proscribed.” “Like all other divisions 

of labour,” he says, “that between hand labour and head labour is more pronounced and 

decided in proportion as society (he rightly uses this word, for capital, landed property and 

their State) becomes richer. This division of labour, like every other, is an effect of past, and 

a cause of future progress...ought the government then to work in opposition to this division 

of labour, and to hinder its natural course? Ought it to expend a part of the public money 

in the attempt to confound and blend together two classes of labour, which are striving after 

division and separation (Section V, Marx)?” This quote from Capital seems to show the 

bluntness of the “powerful” (the capitalist/government) in how the concept and application 

of labor division is administered and implemented. 

This section of chapter 14 seems to be very real since all of us experience the power of 

the capitalist in our lives, as Marx views it, in some form or another. His is a very real view 

of what went on in society, in his time, as well as today. All societies in the world have 

common factors; one of the common factors is that the masses are controlled by the ones 

with power. It does not seem to matter which form of government one lives in; unless one 

has power, one is subject to he who has it. Karl Marx focuses on the capitalists (the ones 

with power) and describes what their interaction is with laborers (ones without power). 

In this section, Marx seems to show his belief that the labor masses have only one purpose, 

which is to increase the “power” of the capitalist. Therefore men, women and children 

are exploited by the capitalist. In order to accomplish the increase of “power”, the capitalist 

must control the masses of labor and have a pool to draw from. The laborer is paid a mere 

sub-existence wage (only enough to keep the laborer in existence), denying him/her the opportunity 

to enjoy the fruits of his own labor. The laborer is treated as a machine with the 

sole purpose of increasing the profits of the capitalist (power). If the laborer is no longer able 

to provide the capitalist with this benefit, even if due to causes related to the fulfillment of 

the laborer’s obligations to the capitalist, he or she is treated as damaged goods. If a machine


is broken or must be updated but it is not cost effective to resolve the issue, then the machine 

becomes damaged goods and must be eliminated, for it no longer fits its purpose. 

“Not all men are born equal.” 

Message [1266] referenced by [2007SP:1051]. Next Message by Tesa is [1525]. 

[1325] Snowy: I agreed with much of paper [1255] by Bboarder, Picard, and Adamwest, 

but I just wanted to add a couple of points that were missed in Chapter 14 of Capital: The 

Division of Labor and Manufacture. 

The writers did not add the difference between the social division of labor and the manufacture 

division of labor, which was explained in Chapter 14.4. I think it is important 

to mention that the differences between social and manufacture division of labor vary, “not 

only in degree, but also in kind”, and are based on the fact that one producer creates independent 

commodities and the manufacturer creates, through united detail labor, one commodity. 

Marx describes the relationship between the cattle-breeder, the tanner, and the shoemaker. 

He describes how they are related to each other, yet independent of one another, because 

each item they produce, the hide, the leather and the shoe, respectively is, by itself, a commodity. 

This is a form of social division of labor because each commodity is used to make 

the final product, the shoe. Marx says that this is a social division of labor. In the manufacture 

division of labor the detail labor does not produce commodities; rather it is the 

combination of all the detail labors that creates the commodity. In addition, Marx states, 

“The division of labor in the workshop implies concentration of the means of production in 

the hands of one capitalist. The division of labor in society implies their dispersion among 

many independent producers of commodities”. 

In [1255] it was stated that Marx, “believes that in order to have division in manufacture 

there needs to be a certain level of division in society”. That is true. The paper writers 

continue to explain that the division in manufacturing deepens the division of society. Yet, 

the paper failed to mention Marx’s addition that at the same time society and the division 

of labor in the manufacturing world feed off of and deepen each other, the division of labor 

instruments, “the industries that produce these instruments, become more and more differentiated”. 

Each industry specializes in one commodity. The division of labor creates a 

specialized commodity as the end product. Marx stated, “in order to carry out more perfectly 

the division of labor in manufacture, a single branch of labor is...split up into numerous, and 

to some extent, entirely new manufactures”. Marx uses the example of the material apprentices 

in France who were forced to create only one type of garment and were not allowed to 

learn how to sew different things, this is used to illustrate that industries become more and 

more differentiated. 

Later in the paper [1255] it states, “Each worker under this system is assigned the task that 

he excels the most at”. The authors continue in explaining that because the person is working 

at his most efficient rate the workers begin to function as if they were parts of a machine, 

the group as a whole resembling a machine. While that is true, it is important to add Marx’s 

analysis of what this does to the worker. Marx believes labor to be integral to the human 

character, and that the division of labor has a devastating impact on the individual worker. 

Marx explains that the devastation is that the worker is forced to do the same repetitive task 

every day and that it oppresses the worker’s imagination. The worker becomes little more 


than a machine. Marx believes that the capitalist wishes to discourage imagination among 

their workers. Manufacture attacks the individual at his very basis and thus is, “the first 

system to provide the materials and the impetus of industrial pathology”. 

Hans: The omission pointed out in your last paragraph is more severe than the others. While the other two omissions 

make the paper perhaps incomplete but not wrong, this third omission changes the thrust of Marx’s argument. 


Term Paper 815 is 515 in 1997WI, 515 in 1997sp, 915 in 1997ut, 915 in 1999SP, 815 in 

2002fa, 815 in 2004fa, 589 in 2007SP, 601 in 2007fa, 609 in 2008SP, 613 in 2008fa, 642 


Term Paper 815 Essay about Chapter Fifteen: Machinery and Large-Scale Industry 

[1391] BonzoIsGod, Sparrow, and Bob: Section 1 - The Development of Machinery 

In order to better understand the development of machinery, Marx first explains the intent 

of the machine. They were essentially created to cheapen commodities. Another element or 

objective in machine production involved the shortening of the work day for the laborer, but 

at the same time this gave the capitalist more for nothing. Marx states: “The machine is a 

means for producing surplus-value.” 

Next, we must better understand the difference between a tool and a machine. The best 

way to really grasp the difference is by thinking of some simple tools including: the lever, 

the inclined plane, the wedge, etc. These obviously work with the laws of physics, yet they 

need some sort of energy put into them in order to work. The machine however, uses these 

tools and furnishes the power, opposed to the laborer. 

Machines were initially produced with three different components. The first, being the 

motor mechanism, which is the driving force of the machine. The second is the transmitting 

mechanism, which is the link between getting the power to the actual function of the tool 

component. This transmitting mechanism is usually composed of pulleys, ropes, wheels, 

gears, etc. The final component is the tool that produced the need of the machine. 

The initial machines were created with the use of horses or water creating the power. 

These types of power had many limitations for the progression of the machine. It wasn’t 

until the steam engine was formed that real advances were made. Marx states: “It was, on 

the contrary, the invention of machines that made a revolution in the form of steam-engines 

necessary.” We must understand that in the early manufacturing stages, individual laborers 

did the processes that needed to be carried out. These processes had to be originally adapted 

to fit them. With machines this principle no longer exists. The development of machinery did 

effectively cheapen commodities, shorten the work day, and produce more for the capitalist. 

Section 4 - The Factory 

“Was Fourier wrong when he called factories ‘mitigated jails’” (Marx, 553). This is 

the conclusion and thesis to Marx’s section of chapter fifteen on The Factory. This section 

coincides perfectly with a chapter on Machinery and Large-Scale Industry, especially at the 

peak of the Industrial Revolution. 

Marx begins the section by looking at the “automation” of manufacturing. More specifically, 

he looks at the loss of technicality in the division of labor. This loss is replaced with


an equalization of workers and the division of labor is regurgitated as a “division between 

workers who are actually employed on the machines and those who merely attend them” 

(Marx, 545). 

Marx then segues into the analysis of workers losing their personality and becoming the 

machine. “In handicrafts and manufacture, the worker makes use of a tool; in the factory, 

the machine makes use of him” (Marx, 548). He explains that the factory work being completed 

drains the motor function and “confiscates every atom of freedom, both in bodily and 

intellectual activity” (Marx, 548). Marx then examines the damage that is incurred by the 

organs under the high temperatures, prevalent dust, noise pollution, and outright danger to 

life. 

Section 5 - The Struggle between Worker and Machine 

“The struggle between the capitalist and the wage-labourer starts with the existence of 

the capital-relation itself.”. . . “But only since the introduction of machinery has the worker 

fought against the instrument of labour itself, capital’s material mode of existence.” (Marx, 

553) Marx uses this opening to the section to springboard into his discussion of particular 

mechanical inventions that have brought on large revolts. 

The revolts that resulted from the induction of these machines were a “knee-Jerk” reaction 

by the workers. In the examples provided by Marx, the workers would attempt to 

destroy the machines. However, “it took both time as experience before the workers learnt 

to distinguish between machinery and its employment by capital, and therefore to transfer 

their attacks from the material instruments of production to the form of society which utilizes 

those instruments.” (Marx, 555) From here Marx goes on to state that the “struggles for 

wages. . . presuppose manufacture” and is not against their existence. 

When the use of machines is implemented they are competing directly with the worker. 

The loss of the worker’s labor-power’s use and exchange-value causes the worker to become 

unsaleable. This loss of work causes other, easily accessible, labour markets to be flooded 

and causes “the price of labour-power fall below its value.” (Marx, 557) 

Marx then confronts the consolations provided to the workers. The first consolation is that 

this displacement is only temporary. The second is that the machines will only gradually take 

over the field of production and thus causing the effect of this takes over to be diminished. 

Marx disputes these consolations on the grounds that the first consolation is in direct conflict 

with the second and as machines gradually take over it causes a sustained sadness amongst 

the workers. This is no consolation. 

Hans: First paragraph: “Shortening of the work day for the laborer” was never an objective of the introduction of 

machinery; only the shortening of the part of the day the laborer worked for himself. 

Second paragraph: The definition that a machine is a tool with its own power source rather than being powered 

by the worker was rejected by Marx; it is not the right definition for the question at hand. 

Third paragraph: The introduction of machinery did not shorten but on the contrary lengthen the work day, 

under the pretext that the work was easier now, and women and children were used. 

The other two sections, about the factory and the struggle, were much better. 



[1398] DarkKnight, Danske, Phatteus, Gutter, and JJ: Group Term Paper on Ch. 15, 

Sec. 8. 15.8 THE REVOLUTIONARY IMPACT OF LARGE-SCALE INDUSTRY ON 

MANUFACTURE, HANDICRAFTS, AND DOMESTIC INDUSTRY 

(a) Overthrow of Co-operation Based on Handicrafts and on the Division of Labor 

With the birth of the machine age emerged an evolution of different stages of production 

cooperation. The handicraft stage was superceded by the manufacturing stage and this stage 

by the factory stage. The motor behind the advent of large scale production was the use of 

new technologies in the form of machines. 

Large scale industry impacted the process of manufacturing significantly. What seemed 

to be a blessing to laborers who would no longer have to perform the tedious functions of 

production would be short lived. The curse was not in the machines or new technologies 

themselves, rather it was the structure of the economy. This structural incongruity would be 

illustrated in Marx’s example of the ‘cottage factories’ (page 589, Capital). In fact, Marx felt 

that the new technologies utilized were a “quite natural and spontaneous development”(page 

589). 

These machines were what should have saved the laborers, but there was a difference in 

these factories from those of the factory stage. The factory stage is characterized by the outright 

ownership of machines and the means of production, while these ‘cottage factories’ had 

to borrow in many cases these means. These external forces eventually ruined the ‘cottage 

factories’ after twelve years of production (pg. 589). Without direct control of production 

means, these industries were clearly put more in the hands of a savage economy than those 

of with direct ownership of the means of production. After being forced out of business, 

these factory workers could not return to their handicraft stage but would be forced to work 

for others in the factory. 

(b) Impact of the Factory System on Manufacture and Domestic Industries 

In this section, Marx rightly stated that the development of the factory system imposed 

several qualitatively different changes in the economy: agriculture was revolutionized and 

all other branches of industry expanded. 

Marx specifically pointed out how “The principle of machine production, namely the division 

of the production process into its constituent phases, and the solution of the problems 

arising by this by the application of mechanics, chemistry and the whole range of the natural 

sciences, now plays the determining role everywhere” (page 590). Where there was once 

a division of labor (based on specialized production processes) now appears a constantly 

changing manufacturing process. The worker who had been used for his special skills was 

replaced by women, children, and unskilled workers. The factory owner sought and found a 

source of cheap labor. 

The move from skilled labor to unskilled took place not only in the factory setting, but 

also in domestic industries. Marx pointed out that, as stated above, these domestic industries 

were qualitatively different from the domestic industry of a prior era. He stated that the 

old industries were independent, taking place in the home of the worker and his family. 

Handicraft and small farming were predominant. The advent of the machine filled factory


created a new domestic industry that was “an external department of the factory”. Products 

were started in the factory and finished by “outworkers” in the surrounding countryside. 

These workers, contrary to working in the comfort of their own homes, were usually crowded 

into various places where their work was brought to them. Marx quoted an example taken 

from the Children’s Employment Commission, Second report, 1864, which stated: “the shirt 

factory of Messrs Tillie at Londonderry, which employs 1,000 workers in the factory itself, 

and 9,000 outworkers spread over the country districts” (page 591). 

Marx contended that the “exploitation of cheap and immature labour-power” (page 591) 

was worse outside of the factory. Inside the factory, much of the work was accomplished 

by the machinery that had been put in place to substitute for the actual physical labor of 

individuals. In the new domestic industry, machinery was less common, and thus the workers 

(chiefly women and children) were “subjected quite unscrupulously to the influence of 

poisonous substances.” 

He also listed a series of other exploitative facets of this kind of system: workers dispersed 

over a larger area are less likely to combine and resist poor working conditions, workers 

do not have direct contact with their employer, anything they would have produced in their 

home has to compete with the factory, their impoverished status as wage earners robbed them 

of the opportunity to work in places where there was enough space, light and ventilation, and 

lastly, employment that became less regular. Marx lamented that wage labor in a factory was 

the last refuge for the masses. As large-scale industry increased, the amount of labor needed 

decreased and the competition for work was maximized. 

(c) Modern Manufacture 

Marx chose, in this section, to point to the destructive influences of machinery in the cooperation 

between individuals in the same phase of production and the collaborative work 

between workers in progressive phases of production. As he noted, the progress of the machine 

changed over a progressive schedule that eliminated the skilled worker for the cheaper 

unskilled women and children. These workers existed in conditions that were not considered 

acceptable in government studies. This was an integral part of the dehumanizing effect 

technology played in transforming small scale industries to more concentrated “cottage” 

industries and later to larger manufacturer facilities and then factories. 

Each step moved the worker farther from any control of the process and gave the capitalist 

greater control of not only the production processes, but also the lives of the workers. As 

machines made it possible to produce more with fewer workers who required few skills the 

labor force shifted dramatically to women and children, men and families had to find ways 

to survive. Government efforts to curtail the exploitation of women and children gave capitalists 

more impetus to use machinery and less labor, heightening the already rampant level 

of poverty amongst the working class. As machines became more capable of performing 

complex processes, more industries fell to the transformation process that led from skilled 

craftsmen to machine produced by unskilled labor. 

These changes frequently gave workers no choice in working and living in extremely 

cramped conditions. They were frequently working and living in very unhealthy and crude 

conditions beginning at a very young age, frequently as young as 2 or 3. These workers had 


almost no opportunity for any kind of education and could not gain any sort of hope for any 

change in their future. The mortality rates were very high among this class. 

(d) Modern Domestic Industry 

In this section Marx portrayed the moral and physical debaucheries associated with the 

lace-making and straw-plaiting manufacturing conditions antedating the Factory Act of 1861, 

England. The “horrors” that are addressed include such working factors as the ages in which 

children were expected to contribute with the workload, the amount of space which was allocated 

for each individual to work, and how many hours were demanded in order to make 

money for the capitalist. These factory workers, depending on their industry, could start 

working as soon as 2 years old to 4 years old. The vast majority of the workers in these 

“warehouses” were comprised of females. All workers at that time worked in small houses 

owned by individual women called mistresses, who were themselves poor. 

Because there could be as many as twenty to forty workers in each house, there was a 

limited amount of space given to each individual to conduct their labors. The most that was 

given to each person for space was 22 cubic feet and hopefully the least amount of space 

given was 12 1/2 cubic feet. 

Marx also discussed the audacity of the typical workday of that time. A normal workday 

consisted of a twelve hour period from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. The exception was that of the busy 

season where they began working at 6 a.m. and went as late as midnight. He also pointed 

out that at the end of the day the capitalist would provide unfinished work to be completed 

before the next morning. Such hardships and inhumane conditions wrought upon by the 

capitalist is why Marx felt that “blood-suckers” is an appropriate title for the capitalist. 

(e) Transition from Modern Manufacture and Domestic Industry to Large-Scale Industry. 

The Hastening of this Revolution by the Application of the Factory Acts to those Industries. 

“The cheapening of labour-power,” (page 599) by its different abuses, and also that of the 

commodity was finally stopped by “certain insuperable natural obstacles.” (page 599) In this 

section Marx illustrated the changes that occurred in the production of “wearing apparel” as 

a result of the Factory Act and the Children’s Employment Commission. This industry was 

comprised of many different sectors, which employed about 1,024,227 persons. Of these, 

115,242 were women under the age of 20, 16,650 were under 15 years of age, there were 

14,964 males under 15 years of age, and 89,285 males between 15 and 20 years of age. Marx 

stated that the cheapening of labor-power through the exploitation of women children and 

of over-work and night-work, would eventually lead to the time when machinery would be 

introduced. 

The Factory Act and the Children’s Employment Commission caused changes in industry. 

By removing under-age workers and modifying the working day factories needed to 

introduce machines to their work force. Replacing workers with machines also caused an 

expansion in the means of production or, in other words, improvements to the machines 

to make them more efficient, etc. The industrial revolution was helped in its progression 

through the power of the Factory Act. The factories, which were required to change due to 

the Factory Act, did not find that their production was slowed.


Hans: Section (a): you correctly say that the factory system displaced handicrafts and manufacturing based on 

division of labor, but then you supply your own reasons why this must be so instead of listening to Marx’s reasons. 

Section (b) is much more accurate but, sorry if I am never satisfied, it should have been abbreviated more. If 

someone wants the details they can easily go to the original text. 

In Section (c) I am noticing again, as in section (a), that you are making your own transitions between the 

different examples, instead of trying to find out Marx’s own principles of organization of the material. 

Section (e) is ok, but don’t copy the number of employees of the wearing apparel industry into your term paper! 


[1404] Stretch, Daleman, Jimmie, and Jerm: Term Paper Chapter 15. Development 

of Machinery 

In the first section of chapter 15, Marx discusses the development of machinery. Marx 

begins his discussion by revealing machinery’s true purpose, producing surplus-value. Marx 

argues that machines are not made to, as Mill says, “lighten the day’s toil of any human being.” 

They exist purely to cheapen commodities and increase the amount of time the laborer 

is producing surplus-value. 

Marx is interested in the difference between the tool and the machine. While the tool 

is the object of handicraft, the machine is the object of industry. Marx disagrees with the 

concept that a machine is just a complex tool, and that the difference between the machine 

and the tool is that a tool is driven by human labor while the machine is driven by a force 

independent to man. Marx argues that it makes no difference whether the machine is driven 

by man or machine. It is just a mechanical implement of the tool which handicraft used to 

implement. In essence the machine replaces the worker. 

Still there must be some motor to move these machines. As industry develops, these motors 

move from man to automation by some independent power source. This leads to the 

development of completely automatic system of machinery. Marx calls this the most developed 

form of production, describing it as “a mechanical monster whose body fills whole 

factories.” 

The movement from human labor-power to natural forces is necessitated by machines. 

Humans, then, are just a “pre-existing material condition of production.” There is no more 

need for specialization and handicraft, except in the case of technical work for the machine. 

Instead of labor-power being used for handicraft, it can now be used to run the machines and 

hence, more surplus-value can be squeezed from the worker and into the capitalists’ pockets. 

The Factory 

Marx says that the factory can be broken down into two different perspectives. The first 

is that the factory is a combined co-operation of work people tending a system of productive 

machines continuously moved by a central power. In this view, the worker is the dominant 

subject and the machine is the object. The other perspective is a great automaton of mechanical 

and intellectual organs producing a common object, both of which are subordinate to a 

self-regulated moving force. In this view, the automaton itself is the subject and the workers 

are just conscious beings working together with the machine. 

In Marx’s factory, both the tool and the skill are passed through to the machine. This 

reduces the need of specialized labor. It also equalizes the level of every kind of work that 

has to be done by the minders of the machine. This equalization eliminates all differences 


among workers except the natural differences of age and sex. In the factory the division 

of labor still re-appears in the form of a distribution of workers on specialized machines, 

and the quantities of workers who work at several similar machines placed together. “The 

essential division is that between workers who are actually employed on the machines and 

those who merely attend them.” (pg.545) Machine production abolishes the need to distribute 

different kinds of workers among different kinds of machines by continuously assigning the 

same worker to the same function. In the factory, the system of production comes from the 

machines and not the worker. It is because of this that the worker can constantly be replaced 

without interrupting the labor process. As a result of being continuously assigned to the same 

function the workers nervous system is exhausted. The monotony of the automaton does not 

free the worker of work, but instead it takes away both bodily and intellectual activity. In my 

own personal experience, I have learned that the monotonous work of repetitive drudgery 

takes more energy than that of hard physical labor. 

The use of labor in the factory is more exploited by the capitalist than in any other system. 

“The slavery in which the bourgeoisie holds the proletariat chained is nowhere more 

conspicuous than in the factory system.” (Footnotes pg.550) The worker is held accountable 

for every mistake made. Overseers keep track of penalties, and punishments come in the 

form of fines, and deductions from wages. Factory workers are not only exploited in terms 

of time worked and accountability, but also in their working conditions. Workers have to 

endure injuries and work through conditions such as high temperatures, deafening noise, 

dusty atmospheres, and danger to life and limb from machines that are too closely crowded 

together. The capitalist does all that he can to gain a surplus in his production, even if it 

means exploiting the worker to the extent that he does in the factory system. 

The Struggle between the Worker and Machine 

The relationship between workers and machinery is really a relationship between the 

capitalist and his wage workers. Upon the introduction of machinery we start to see fierce 

opposition to capitalism as a whole. The worker begins to challenge the very principles upon 

which capitalistic production is based and ultimately learns that his frustration is not directed 

to the machines themselves, but rather the form of society which supports machinery. 

In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries machines such as the ribbon loom, wind 

driven saw mills, and water powered shearing machines were introduced in Europe. Violence, 

mobs, and arson confronted the efforts of capitalists to implement such machinery. 

It wasn’t until the late 19 century that workers began to realize the distinction between the 

machines themselves and the society that uses them. 

Marx suggests that the opposition to this manufacturing movement proceeds from guildmasters 

and privileged towns, not from the wage workers. (Marx 1976) This statement 

suggests that the need for labor is dependent upon the job at hand. If a particular job requires 

20 workers to complete and the introduction of a machine makes it so the job only requires 

10, this does not mean that the machine took the place of 10 workers but rather that the job 

only requires 10 workers to complete.


Marx describes the industrial revolution from an agricultural point of view as a sequence 

of events. First the worker is driven from the land, then the sheep arrive, then thefts occur 

creating a transformation that is somewhat political in nature. 

This same sequence is manifested with the introduction of machinery. The difference 

being that the machine becomes a competitor to the worker himself. The value of capital by 

means of his machine is related directly to the number of workers who are displaced by it. 

When machines start performing the same tasks that workers once did, the use value of the 

workers labor is all but destroyed along with the exchange value as well, making the worker 

and his labor un-sellable. 

The massive effects of machinery on workers are manifest by the displacement of handloom 

weavers in the 19th century. Many weavers died of starvation or wasted away in 

poverty. 

The Theory of Compensation 

Marx begins this discussion by making the opponent’s point, namely that workers who 

are displaced by machinery, free up capital which is the same amount needed to employ 

them somewhere else. He then goes on to explain why this is not the case. 

The example he uses states. . . 100 workers paid $30 per year each = $3000 per yr. in variable 

capital expenses. Raw materials cost $3000. For a total of $6000. If half of the variable 

capital is spent on machinery then 50 workers are displaced. But the irony of machinery is 

that it is meant to be more productive than human labor. Marx goes on to point out three important 

points which essentially eat up the freed up capital. First, the value of the means of 

production used in the construction of the machinery. Second, the wages needed to pay the 

mechanics in the construction. Finally, “the surplus-value falling to the share of the master.” 

Most importantly with each improvement in the machinery it will displace more workers. 

According to Marx the most damaging thing that machinery does is: it cuts the worker 

off from the means of obtaining a level of subsistence. Since the subsistence level is barely 

enough to maintain life, when workers lose this as Marx puts it they “for the most part 

starve and perish.” To add further insult to injury those workers cannot easily find other 

employment as the Bourgeois economists say they can according to Marx. They are crippled 

by their specialized knowledge, and this division of labor makes it more difficult to find other 

work. 

Since machinery can produce more output at cheaper costs, it all creates other problems. 

The materials it produces are cheaper, leaving more money for people to buy other goods. 

This drives up the production and in turn the cost of other luxury items. The capital which 

was claimed to be freed up by the use of machinery is now used on more raw materials 

and other machines to make these other products, rather than being spent of replacing the 

workers who were first displaced. Marx summarizes that when capitalists employ machinery 

they further their exploitation of the labor class, which increases, of course, unemployment. 

Hans: First section is excellent. 

In the section about the factory, what you call the two perspectives on the factory are really the contradiction 

between what the factory could be by the nature of a scientifically organixed production process, and what it has 

been turned into as an instrument of capitalist exploitation. 


Message [1404] referenced by [1408] and [1478]. Next Message by Stretch is [1737]. 

[1406] Geo: graded A In response to the term paper [1391] posted by BonzoIsGod, Sparrow, 

and Bob, I agree with much of what you are saying, or Marx is saying, but I also feel 

that a few criticisms of Marx on these points are appropriate. There are a few points in 

particular that I was drawn to because of the apparent contradiction that takes place when 

considering them. On one hand many of the arguments are legitimate, on the other hand, 

many seem to be less relevant and even contradictory when considered in today’s context. 

To use an example, there was a sentence quoted in the term paper which stated, “In 

handicrafts and manufacture, the worker makes use of a tool; in the factory, the machine 

makes use of him...” This is good example of this double sided character in many of Marx’s 

arguments. Surely, from the perspective of Marx’s day the true benefits of the machine 

had not been made fully manifest and this phrase rings true. Workers became less valuable 

through the new reduction in production costs and time because of the invention of the 

machine. And many aspects of this argument are still true today. It is no wonder why Marx 

argues that the machines benefited only the Capitalist, because back then they did. 

But, today this argument is only partly true or at least becomes much more cloudy. The 

workers are still ‘used by the machine’ but it is harder to argue that only the capitalist benefits 

from the machine. In fact it would be outright false to say that humanity has not benefited 

from the use of the machine, even the poorest have in one way or another benefited from 

the invention of the machine. This has equalized the relationship more than it was during 

the early stages of the industrial revolution by creating a symbiotic relationship between the 

people and the machine. The only problem, that Marx would probably say “I told you so” 

to, is the fact that the capitalists are benefiting more than the worker or average person from 

the machine, thus the exploitation continues. But where and to what degree is much more 

shady because of the increases in standards of living, brought about partly because of the 

machine. 

This paradox may be something interesting to have the class throw a few opinions around 

on. Did the invention of the machine help or hinder the average person, and to what extent? 

What should be done about new inventions in relationship to the worker and the capitalist? 

I personally believe that new inventions with a few exceptions should be used, but we still 

need to find more controls so that the use of the new inventions can truly be used to help 

humanity. I think we are heading in this direction at an agonizing pace but we are still headed 

there. 

Hans: These are excellent questions to ask! 


[1407] Thugtorious: graded A Response to Geo’s Question. Geo’s analysis of technology 

in [1406], and more specifically the machine, brings up some interesting points but falls 

short in consideration of the long run. A lot of Marx’s theories have not had a chance to 

be truly tested because capitalism is relatively young (only thriving since roughly the 18th 

century). Granted, machines benefit all of society. Without technology, innovation, and machines 

we would not have the current state of health, an ever increasing standard of living, 

and the easy life that we have comparable to the hard life of the middle ages and other times


past. Unfortunately, the potential increase in social welfare is cut short by the capitalist 

yoking the technology and sucking out profits.. 

Aspects of Neo-Classical economics and Business Theory support Marx’s perception of 

technology. Schumpeter’s business cycle theory states, and I summarize: a new technology 

will be introduced which increases short run profits for whatever firm possesses that 

technology. Over time, competing methods will be whittled down until you have one or so 

remaining method(s) which become the industry standard. At that point, the industry falls 

back down to its long-run output, productivity, profits, and other aspects of performance. 

Schumpeter’s analysis explains what happens on the surface of the economy in the long run. 

However, as with most of his theories, Marx takes a step back to analyze what is going on 

in the “core.” 

Why is there currently a polarization of income in the United States? Why do the “rich 

get richer, and the poor get poorer”? What is happening within the structure of the economy 

that allows this to happen? These are the same questions of today that plagued Marx’s time. 

Even though we have combustion engines, atomic energy, alternative fuels, better health 

care, and the list goes on . . . even with all of these advances in efficiency and productivity 

increasing at an exponential rate, we only see an increase in the income of the super-majority 

of humanity and their standard of living slowly creep up at an arithmetic rate. 

As technology is introduced, the productivity of laborers is increased and society does 

receive some of the benefits as explained. But why isn’t there a 100% increase in societal 

welfare equal to the increase provided by the machine, technology, etc? Because the capitalists 

are selfish, narrow-sighted individuals who are fixated on lining their pockets with more 

money. My main point is that the true standard of living (and by true, I mean a more holistic 

approach: education, health, housing, insurance, etc.) could be so much higher if the entire 

benefit of the endeavors and advances provided by the intellectual elite were passed on to 

society as a whole. 


[1408] Pete: graded B Response to Daleman Term Paper for Chapter 15. Term paper 

[1404] said, “They exist purely to cheapen commodities and increase the amount of time the 

laborer is producing surplus-value.” 

The commodities themselves are not cheapened, they are produced at a lower cost so 

more can be sold. The commodities would, however, cheapen if the firm flooded the market 

and thus every commodity lost. The value of the commodity of this firm would not be as 

great as other firms who were not using machines because the commodity was produced for 

less cost. 

The cost of labor-power was the same because the machines only made it possible to use 

less man power. The fixed cost of the firm stay the same. The workers just produced more 

with their hours of work. 

Hans: You are right, the motivation of the firms for introducing new technologies is cost savings. But if the cost 

saving machinery increases their output, they may find it profitable to lower prices in order to be able to sell more. 

Marx describes this in chapter 12, [433:2/oo]. 

In Marx’s view this is one of the ways how, behind the back of the producers, the law asserts itself that prices 

must be proportional to labor content. 



[1478] Zone: graded A response to essay. The essay [1404] on Marx’s Chapter 15, 

Machinery and Large-Scale Industry does a great job at summarizing the ideas laid out by 

Marx. But, I feel they missed some underlying parts of the problems with machines, and 

factories in particular. 

In the section about factories they state, “In the factory, the system of production comes 

from the machines and not the worker. It is because of this that the worker can constantly be 

replaced without interrupting the labor process.” Not only is there a problem with the quick 

replacement of the worker, making him appear to be disposable in the eyes of a capitalist, 

but there is also a loss of interaction between the worker and his product. E.K. Hunt wrote in 

History of Economic Thought, “Human senses and intellect were developed through working.” 

When these developments are halted by a monotonous activity, the capitalist is robbing 

the worker of important things necessary to enjoy life and develop into their full potential. 

The worker is affected more in the long run than in the actual physical and mental labor 

associated with the monotonous job. 

When a worker is in a factory doing the same function over and over again he is separated 

from the final product that he is creating. Instead of seeing the product produced from beginning 

to end and having something personal at stake in the product, the worker is removed 

completely from it. There is no interaction associated with the end product; Marx called this 

the “alienation” of the worker (Hunt). The Capitalist never thinks of the emotional needs 

of the worker, they only think of the profits associated with the factory. The worker is just 

another machine that can be replaced at any time. 

The essay in general was well thought out and well written, but I thought that this chapter 

in particular explores more into the exploitation of the worker. Exploitation is not only in the 

working conditions of the factory, or the profit made on the backs of the laborer. It can be 

seen in the loss of interaction and self actualization of the worker, as well as, the “alienation” 

of the worker. 

Hans: In chapter 15, Marx mentions alienation or estrangement only once, in 557:1/oo: 

Hence, the character of independence and estrangement which the capitalist mode of production 

as a whole gives to the instruments of labor and to the product, as against the workman, 

is developed by means of machinery into a thorough antagonism. 

In other words, machinery, as it was used at Marx’s time, was beyond being alienated from the worker: it not only 

had slipped out of the worker’s control, it even had become the mortal enemy of the worker. This is the reason for 

the brutal revolts of the workers against the machines at this time. 


[1501] Gza: graded A In reviewing paper [1398] produced by DarkKnight, Danske, Gutter, 

and JJ, and , I found many excellent points highlighted and expounded. Toward the 

beginning of the paper, under section (a) Overthrow of Co-operation Based on Handicrafts 

and on the Division of Labor, they noted the significant impact of large scale industry. In 

many ways new technology that seems to release the worker from a majority of tedious labor 

turns into a “curse.” In seems sensible without considering the rest of Marx’s analysis 

that the “curse” is in the machines themselves because machines eventually replace workers. 

However, this assumption as noted in the paper is wrong because the “curse” is ingrained in


the system or “structure of the economy,” not with the machine. The example of the “cottage 

factories” is used to illustrate this point. 

The section on the impact of the factory system on manufacture and domestic industries 

highlighted the shift from skilled labor to unskilled labor. Prior to large-scale industry there 

was a natural division of labor based on specialized production. However with the rise of 

large-scale industry, special skilled workers are replaced with unskilled workers. This shift 

is motivated by the industry “saving” money or “cutting” costs. Importantly noted in the 

paper, this shift or substitution not only affected public industry but also private domestic 

work and manufacturing. Family goods now were situated in direct competition with largescale 

industrial goods that are produced at low costs. 

The paper properly stated that exploitation of cheap labor-power was worse outside the 

factory. The proliferation of technology and machines that take the place of much of the 

human physical labor actually protected the human laborers from exhaustion, harm, and 

danger. However, domestically machinery was rare and so human workers had to expose 

themselves to harmful conditions. Here I wish the paper reconciled the necessity of domestic 

labor and its harm to the worker to the competition of large-scale industry threatening 

domestic goods while protecting the human worker. I think at first glance there is a paradox 

but Marx provides a way out of through his analysis of the “nature” of competition. 

There seems to be a paradox within Marx’s analysis of the working class revolt and his 

observation of dispersed workers. As noted in the paper, “workers dispersed over a large 

area are less likely to combine as resist poor working conditions.” As explained further in 

the paper, workers that have little to no contact with each other or to their employer. Again 

there is not a real contradiction within Marxist theory but is does illustrate an obstacle for 

the workers’ revolt. Within the paper’s list of “exploitative facets” is the observation of as 

large scale industry increases the demand for labor decreases and as result the competition 

for work is maximized. There is no analysis on any of these characteristics. The paper could 

have included a brief example or explanation of how each characteristic functions in the 

worker’s and the domestic production worst interest. 

An important and well stated observation in the paper is how the “each step moved the 

worker farther from any control of the process and gave the capitalist greater control of not 

only the production process, but also the lives of the workers.” As the demand for workers 

decreased because of the availability of machines, workers were forced into poverty with 

little to no hope of getting out because of the high level of competition among other workers 

but also against machines. This structure of production pins worker against worker dividing 

the class which makes it easier to control and manipulate. 

The rise of machines created a vicious cycle hinted at the conclusion of the paper. Labor 

was cheapened through the introduction of female and child labor. Over-work and nightwork 

eventually lead to the development of machines that replace human labor. It is sensical 

to assume the money saved though the employment of cheap labor allowed the capitalists 

to invest in machinery. The wide utilization of machines creates an expansion in the means 

of production making improvements to the machines. It would be a nice addition to take 

Marx’s analysis further by suggesting these improvements make the machines more efficient 


making human workers more and more obsolete which perpetuates human’s state of poverty 

and conflict with other potential workers. 

Overall the paper was excellent and enjoyable to read. It was well organized and discussed 

Marx’s analysis in a logical manner. There is not much more that can be expected 

from a paper. However, just as a personal gripe of my own, I would have liked the paper to 

expound on some of the crucial observations the paper included, like the ones I mentioned 

above. Regardless of my criticism, I thought it was a great paper and one I actually enjoyed 

reading. 

Hans: Many of your questions are answered in the accumulation chapter (chapter 25), not the machinery chapter. 

The writers of the term paper brought some themes from the accumulation chapter into their paper as a filler making 

a smoother transition between Marx’s examples. Marx himself was much more systematic. 


Term Paper 821 is 921 in 1998WI, 921 in 1999SP, 821 in 2002fa, 821 in 2003fa, and 821 

in 2004fa: 

Term Paper 821 Essay about Chapter Twenty-One: Piece Wages 

[1625] Prairierose, Karlwho, and Mason: Piece Wages 

Marx devotes chapter twenty-one of Capital to the discussion of piece-wages. A piecewage 

is a payment according to the number of pieces produced. In chapter twenty Marx 

discussed the time-wages. A time-wage is how much a capitalist pays a worker during a 

given time period. The piece-wage is a converted form of the time-wage and the time-wage 

is the converted form of the value of labor power. Therefore, the piece-wage is a form of a 

form just like the time wage. Marx gives the formula for determining the price of labour-time 

by value of a day of labour equals daily value of labor-power (694). He then concludes, the 

piece-wage is therefore only a modified form of the time-wage. Piece-wages and time-wages 

often exist side by side in the same industry and in the same factory. Marx uses the example 

of the compositors of London. As a general rule the compositors of London work by the 

piece; however, the compositors in the country, work by the time-wage (692). A modern 

day example occurs at my previous place of employment. The company hired technicians in 

house and paid them a time-wage; however, the technicians who were subcontracted were 

paid a piece-wage. In addition, this company’s competitor solely utilized piece-wages by 

only hiring subcontractors as technicians. 

According to Marx, piece-wages are measured “by the quantity of products in which 

the labor has become embodied during a given time.” Piece-wages on the surface appear 

that the worker is paid for his performance, but in reality piece-wages are another way to 

measure labor time. The setting of piece-wage is a struggle between the capitalist and the 

workers. Marx states on page 694, “the quality of the labour is here controlled by the work 

itself, which must be of good average quality if the piece-price is to be paid in full. Piecewages 

become, from this point of view, the most fruitful source of reductions in wages, 

and of frauds committed by the capitalist.” Returning back to my modern day example of 

the technicians at my previous job, the subcontracted technicians were required to meet 

specified standards in order to get paid for their completed jobs. Note the word completed. 

The subcontracted technicians were only compensated for completed jobs. If they spent all


day at a job and for whatever reason the job could not be completed, they were not paid. 

In addition, if a trouble call was issued within ninety days of the job being completed, the 

technician would receive a charge back for the completed job. 

Piece-wages are used by the capitalist to exploit the worker in two ways. The first is that 

the worker must intensify her work, and consequently the factory becomes more productive. 

Also, the necessary amount of supervision the workers need is reduced because it is in the 

workers best interest to work as most intensely as possible. The second exploitation is the 

lengthening of the working day. The capitalist knows exactly the average time it takes to 

complete a piece, and the average profit he makes on each piece. The capitalist, therefore, 

knows exactly the wage to pay the worker so that to make a subsistence wage, the worker has 

to work longer and more intensely than they would have done if being paid by time-wages. 

But because the worker is working more intensely, the average time it takes to make a piece 

will eventually fall, and more will be expected. Although the piece-wage can raise the wage 

of the individual above the average, it has a tendency to lower the average itself. In fact, in 

exceptional cases where piece-wages have been used for a long period of time, the piecewages 

had to be transformed into time-wages because the wages were lowered so far that the 

workers finally went on strike. Thus the capitalist controls more fully both the qualitative 

and quantitative sides of production. However, the exploitation is not always immediately 

apparent to new workers. To them, piece-work may seem to provide an opportunity for great 

achievement, i.e. the more you work the more you get paid. At first, they don’t realize how 

the piece-rates have been set, so that even with their greatest efforts they will earn little in 

relation to what they produce, and if they perform better than the past standards, the piecerates 

will be adjusted downward so that their income barely rises, even with the workers 

increased effort. 

Marx explains that when new fashions were introduced, the workers and capitalists were 

at odds regarding the new labour time required. On page 699 Marx states, “changes in the 

productivity of labour mean that the same quantity of a given product represents an amount 

of labour-time which varies.” This leads to constant struggles between the capitalist and 

the workers. The capitalist is continuously attempting to lower the piece-wage. The struggle 

occurs because the capitalist is using it as a pretext for lowering the price of labor, or the work 

is intensifying and productivity goes up, or because the worker believes she is being paid for 

her product and not her labor-power. The worker resists any lowering of her wage unless 

it includes a simultaneous reduction in the price of the commodity. This also resonated 

between the technicians and management at my previous job when new technology was 

introduced. Management always felt the work should be completed in considerable less 

time than what the workers were actually able to complete it in. Marx cites the example 

of the London furniture workshops where the workers who could not provide labour of an 

average degree of efficiency were dismissed. Not only is the worker’s wage determined by 

the number of pieces made, it is also determined by the quality of work for the full pieceprice 

wage to be paid. This was also the case at my previous employment; subcontracted 

technicians who could not meet the average standards would lose their contracts. 

Marx states on page 396, “lengthening of the working day is now in the personal interest 

of the worker, since with it his daily or weekly wages rises.” The longer the worker works 


the more products she can produce thus the greater wage she can earn. Many of the subcontracted 

technicians worked longer hours than the in-house technicians in order to earn a 

greater wage to compensate for hours they worked but would not be compensated. 

The piece-wage offers the capitalist a form of hidden exploitation. The piece-wage drives 

workers to work at a greater intensity and longer hours. In Marx’s time, many industries and 

factories used both time and piece wages. Due to increased regulations piece-wages have 

disappeared from most industries. 


[1640] Ash and Elvis: How the laborer gets paid is one of the key elements in a capitalist 

system. The capitalist wants to minimize its risk, labor being a huge risk in that the capitalist 

does not know if he will be productive, and maximize its profits. In order to do that the capitalist 

needs to be creative in compensation. The current sales industry is a perfect example 

of this. Many sales jobs have complex compensation options and packages that look good 

on the surface, but in reality are the personification of capitalist exploitation. Hiding the real 

wage or the realistic wage is key in these types of programs. Marx points out the same type 

of thing with piece rate wages. 

Paying an employee piece rate wages is a clever thing to do for several reasons. As we 

have learned earlier the laborer does not sell his labor, but his labor-power, or his ability 

to produce a surplus for the capitalist. This being the case, once your employees begin to 

understand they are being exploited, piece rate is a great deception. It tells the worker, “You 

can be paid for what you produce and not by the hour.” If you are the hardest worker this 

seems very attractive to you. It also tells the capitalist, “You can truly buy only their laborpower 

(as with hourly wages productivity is lost with wasted time, etc.) as the laborer is 

tied to his production.” This sounds great to the capitalist. So, at first glance it seems like a 

win-win situation. However, therein lays the deception. 

If the capitalist controls and makes all of the rules it is extremely easy to exploit the laborer 

even more with piece wages instead of hourly wages. By setting standards of production 

that are extremely difficult to reach. Also, as with the sales industry, setting production 

goals that are tied to bonuses and other consolations is another form of piece wages. For 

example, if the laborer produces 60 widgets per day he will be paid $6 per widget instead 

of $5 per widget. This would cause the worker to work more hours in the day in order to 

achieve the extra dollar per widget. This effectively lengthens the work day without increasing 

wages when compared to the hourly structure. It also puts the pressures of production 

onto the laborer’s shoulders and not the capitalist’s, thus, deceiving the laborer again with a 

so-called bonus structure that is not really a bonus. Along with that, if the laborer produces 

59 widgets he will not get the bonus even if it took him 12 hours to make 59 widgets. 

Piece wage is also effective as it is easier to hide the real wage from the laborer. If you 

have employees that work only by the hour and you tell them all that you are lowering their 

wages by 25%, they will all know right away that their real wage went down. However, 

if you change the compensation from hourly to piece rate then you now can hide the fact 

that they are getting a decrease in pay instead of an increase. Most employees would not 

calculate out what the losses or gains are until they saw their checks were smaller.


Piece rate is one of the most exploitative practices of the capitalist. It is able to confuse 

the laborer that they are getting paid what they are “worth” as it is tied to their production 

and not their time. It appears to be a healthy compromise at first, satisfying both the laborer 

and the capitalist. It also lowers the real wage while increasing the work day. Piece rate is 

still very present today in our society, taking advantage of the unsuspecting working class. 

Message [1640] referenced by [1642], [1841], [1850], [1853], [1859], and [1866]. Next Message by Ash is [1641]. 

[1657] Ernesto: piece rate= ? In my interpretation, a piece rate might look more like a 

payment plan that is dictated on marginal product of labor. In a sense, it seems as though you 

are justly compensated based upon the labor theory of value. I work in a sales industry and I 

have seen the earning potential of different commission structures. Hourly rates and salaries 

cap ones ability to increase your real wage rate. If you are on salary, you are paid the same 

whether you work 40 hours or 50 hours. This obviously would be a disincentive to work 

more than what was required. Hourly rates will compensate you based upon time on task. 

This seems to eliminate a real incentive to increase productivity. Based on my experience, 

being paid based upon what you produce has a better outcome than any other mechanism. 


[1660] Fidel and Tiny: Chapter 21 resubmission. Brandon 

Piece Wages 

In it’s simplest form piece wages are payment determined by the number of pieces produced. 

On the surface it seems to be very different than the time wage where number of 

hours worked determine pay. This superficial difference Marx says should “receive an initial 

severe shock from the fact that both forms of wages exist side by side, at the same time” 

(p. 1519) Maybe these two types of wages are not so different. While giving the appearance 

of placing power with Labor the piece wage is actually the most beneficial to the capitalist. 

Piece-work to the uninitiated laborer seems great. The more one works with more efficiency 

the more that person is paid. The logic of working more to earn more money is simple and 

easy to grasp. Unfortunately that logic disguises the true nature of piece wages. The laborer 

who so happily accepts the piece rate as a way to earn more may not see the calculus behind 

the piece rate. This begs the question: who sets the rate? This question is and always has 

been a great source of tension between management and labor. Labor wants a true reflection 

of value while management seeks to suppress the wage. The conversion from time wages 

to piece wages will often involve statistical averages of production. Thus if on average one 

worker could produce one coat in one hour that coat then becomes a conversion for one hour 

of time worked. Marx says “that the difference in the form of wage payments in no way 

alters the essential nature of wages” (p. 1520) in other words it is still a converted form of 

the value of labor and is inherently irrational. 

Piece wages have several peculiarities. By its nature piece wages ensure the quality of 

work performed. Inspection of work is a prerequisite to getting paid thus any production 

that has not met the standards will go without compensation. This Marx says leads piece 

wages to become “the most fruitful source of reductions in wages, and of frauds on part of 

the capitalists” (p 1524) In piece wages the quality of work is determined by the form of 

wage, thus direct supervision of the laborer is not necessary. This is a saving to the capitalist 

that takes its form in additional profit. 


Another peculiarity of piece rate pay is that it makes it easier for “parasites to interpose 

themselves between the capitalist and the wage-laborer, thus giving rise to the ’subletting of 

labor’” (p. 1526). These people are the middlemen. A very contemporary example of this 

is new home construction. The general contractor acts as the capitalist. He/She is building a 

house for profit. Of course this general contractor will not do all the work and possibly will 

not perform any of the work. This contractor will “sublet” the labor to these same middlemen 

that Marx spoke of. In this case they are known as “sub-contractors”. These sub-contractors 

may perform some of the labor but, like the general contractor, they are most likely to not 

perform any of the work. This sub-contractor will contract with the general contractor for 

work performed at a piece rate. The sub-contractor will then pay labor some fraction of the 

contracted piece rate and keep the rest as profit. Thus the sub-contractor adds no value and 

becomes a “parasite”. 

An additional peculiarity of piece wages is the incentive to work longer hours. Along 

with the additional hours the worker will pick up the intensity of labor. The longer hours will 

provide additional wages for some workers and others who cannot keep up will make less 

than under the time wage form. Through Marx’s empirical studies he was able to determine 

that these differences cancel each other out. A modern version of this piece rate is the sales 

commission. Many people in the sales profession will work 60-80 hours per week. In the 

modern blue-collar world this does not happen. The seemingly higher pay of sales hides 

what should be the obvious exploitation inherent in a sixty-hour workweek. These long 

hours amount to a form of voluntary slavery. Marx discusses factory work and its monotony 

which one does not immediately associate with the monotony of sales work. 

The piece wage is the ideal payment for the capitalist. It reduces labor to the lowest 

common denominator: production. For the capitalist it is much more efficient due to less 

supervision and guaranteed quality control. 

Bibliography Cleaver Jr., Harry M. Economics 387L.18. Fall 2005. World wide web 

eco.utexas.edu/facstaff/Cleaver/387Lintro.html 

accessed November 23, 2005. 

Marx, Karl Das Kapital, Volume 1. Fourth Edition, 1890. 

Hans: Piece wages not only seem different than time wages, but they seem to be a payment of the value of the 

product. This is the misconception that receives a severe shock. 


[1676] MK: Chp 21– comments. In response to your paper– which I enjoyed reading– I 

added (or interjected) some comments that I feel are additional important points made in the 

chapter. 

One of the great attractions of piece work and piece wages (to capitalists) is that with 

piece rates set low enough, very little supervision is required. In order to earn a living wage 

workers must work hard, fast and well enough to produce an adequate quantity of pieces 

-irrespective of supervision. The cost of supervision is passed from the capitalist to worker 

as they internalize the discipline of piece work and impose/enforce labor upon themselves– 

the piece workers pay the psychological costs not only of alienation but of the hour-to-hour 

experience of imposing that alienation upon themselves.


That piece wages reduce the need for direct supervision doesn’t mean that workers are left 

entirely on their own. With standards set for the number of pieces produced (thus the time 

and intensity of work), the capitalist must make sure that the workers don’t create the illusion 

of having met that standard by working fast but producing sub-par products. Hence the need 

for quality control. In any piece work situation, there must be quality control inspectors 

who examine the quality of the pieces produced to make sure that the quality as well as the 

amount and intensity of work time are up to par. If the number of pieces being produced 

is large, then it is commonplace for only a random sample to be checked for quality. If the 

number is small, all can be checked. Under such circumstances capitalists try to organize 

the work so it is obvious which worker produced which piece - a step necessary to be able 

to identify those responsible for not meeting quality standards. 

Hans: Which paper were you replying to? 

First Message by MK is [80]. 

[1841] Tomek: I disagree with the author of the articleo [1640] that the piece system 

of payment provides the opportunity to employers to exploit the employees and decrease 

their wages. On the contrary, I am confident that the salary based on the amount of the 

work completed rather than on the hours spent to do it is more effective and motivating. 

Unfortunately, the analysis of the system provided by the author is limited only to sales 

and production managers – it is incomplete and does not take into account the personality 

differences as well as working preferences. Piece system is very effective in setting goals 

and motivating employees to over-achieve them. The only statement I agree with is that “the 

capitalist wants to minimize its risk, labor being a huge risk in that the capitalist does not 

know if he will be productive, and maximize its profits. In order to do that the capitalist 

needs to be creative in compensation.” Of course, nobody can ever be completely confident 

that the new employee will be productive and able to meet the requirements. However, the 

point made by the author is not about the hiring methods and how to identify whether or 

not an employee will benefit the company, but rather the author points out that the hourly 

salary is much better, fairer and more motivating. It might prove to be truth, but not with 

every employee. For example, if two employees perform the same job for an equal number 

of hours but the first worker produced 50 details while the second only 30. Should they 

get paid equally?? No, they should be paid for the results, not for the process. The second 

worker was either unwilling to work productively, lazy, or lacks skills to perform better. The 

first one should be rewarded more because he produced more. The statement that the real 

wage can be lowered while the working day is increased and the employee will not notice 

it lacks any logic. If the employee is compensated based on the work completed, his salary 

will correspond to his achievements, while the hourly wage provides the opportunity to work 

less without harm to the compensation. 

Hans: Your error is to look at the situation as a one-time snapshot without considering what happens when the 

situation is repeated. If many workers try to improve their lot by working harder, this will inevitably lead to a 

raising of the standards. 

Message [1841] referenced by [1853]. Next Message by Tomek is [1845]. 

[1850] Manchu: The article [1640] written by Ash, Spene, Elvis on chapter 21 laid out 

very simply a concept that is of particular interest to many of us in today’s labor market. The 

reading suggests a naivety to those who agree with piece wages, but until my reading of Marx 

I never understood that those wages were an attempt to increase production in a exploitive 


way.. It is a well disguised way to increase production by setting up a smokescreen that 

looks like income potential. I would have to agree with their synopsis that “piece rate is 

one of the most exploitative practices of the capitalist” and is a great tool at their disposal 

for accelerating their agenda without disclosing it to the worker. Marx himself believes 

that “piece wages become the most fruitful source of reductions in wages, and of frauds 

committed by the capitalists.” (p. 694) 

Although the article was very well done, I would like to elaborate on a couple of points 

that were not touched upon. First, piece wages not only save money through productive 

means but also managerial means. By dangling the carrot in front of the worker with piece 

wages the need to staff managers and supervisors decreases. It is not necessary to crack the 

whip on the worker when the worker is chasing their wage. 

Second, piece wage work creates a hierarchy of wages when employers sign contracts 

with only one worker who then subcontracts other workers and pays them a lower wage. 

I remember on several occasions being approached to sell pesticide or security systems 

door to door over the summer for piece wages. Most of my friends who did this seemed to 

have very negative experiences. Now that I understand Marx I know why. 


[1853] TimJim: I agree much with Tomek’s comments [1841] with regards to the term 

paper submission [1640], however, it seems to me that people are only associating piece 

wages with sales jobs. With my understanding, sales jobs are only a part of the topic. I see 

this as more simply the difference between salary and hourly employees. A capitalist will 

want employees to be hourly only if the daily job can be completed within the set amount 

of time that day (8 hours for example) or if it is an ongoing job with no end in sight. This 

type of job might be retail or customer service where the worker seems to get no further 

in progress at the end of the day. The capitalist will pay employees a salary if the type of 

work requires extended projects or the job does not have an hourly requirement but entails 

long hours per day (i.e. management). My father-in-law started a company that sold cd 

supplements to yearbooks to high schools across the nation. Most of the workers would earn 

their pay on the completion of the project. The company was aware that at the beginning of 

the school year there was not much work to do, and near the end of the school year, their 

employees would be logging 80-90 hours per week to complete the project in time. This 

type of salary allowed the capitalist, my father-in-law, to save money and complete the same 

amount of work. Instead of paying the employees 40 hours per week at the beginning of 

the year when there wasn’t enough work, and paying the employees much overtime at the 

end of the year (if they could encourage the hourly employees to stay that long at work), the 

remedy would be the piece wage. This piece wage seems to me to simply be the alternative 

way the capitalist could save the most money, or exploit the employee the best. 

First Message by TimJim is [243]. 

[1859] Tink: graded A I very much enjoyed term paper [1640], and also some of the 

comments already written about it. When reading this paper it was the first time I had really 

given any thought to piece wages as being so exploitative. I have had jobs like this, and 

while I always hated them, it didn’t seem terribly unfair to me to base my earnings off of 

my results. Instead of earning a parsel hourly wage, I had a sort of ‘earning potential’ which


allowed me to earn theoretically as much as I wanted, if I could work hard enough to produce 

the results. It is a very clever method of th capitalist to employ such a system, because the 

wage earner does feel a degree of “fairness” about the situation, when in fact it is a highly 

exploitative system. As their paper describes, piece wages do not account for the worker’s 

time and easily hide decreases in real wage. 

Manchu’s comments about the lack of need for managers and supervisors when piecewages 

are used is a very important aspect of the system, because they are typically the highest 

earning laborers under the capitalist. By reducing the need for managers, the capitatlists 

are retaining even more money. The analogy that the capitalist is simply dangling a carrot 

in front of the wage earners is very appropriate. The workers don’t need to be compelled 

to work by a supervisor, and there is less need for intricate training because the worker will 

be motivated to figure out the best way to produce quickly so he can attain the higher wage. 

The capitalist gains on these workers, and loses little on the ones that aren’t very motivated, 

because they aren’t being compensated for their time. 


[1866] BBQ: In the term paper [1640] written by Ash and Elvis on Chapter 21 entitled 

“Piece Wages” I felt the authors did an excellent job in laying out the simplicity of the topic 

in a manner that allowed one to read the paper with ease. A great deal of Marx’s written 

work is very complicated and at times frustrating to comprehend, and this paper did a great 

job in laying out the argument in laymen’s terms. The statement “piece rate is one of the 

most exploitative practices of the capitalist” that Manchu [1850] points out in his critique 

is a statement that also caught my eye while reading the term paper. I too would have to 

agree that piece wages will become the more fruitful source of reductions in wages by the 

capitalist. Wages by the piece are nothing else than a converted form of wages by time, just 

as wages by time are a converted form of the value or price of labour-power. 

I have experience with working and being paid by a piece rate. In high school, I had a 

job working in a call center where I worked for the phone company BellSouth. I was an 

independent third party representative that clarified to the customer any changes that would 

be made to their phone service. Each call was paid a piece rate of .50. In Utah, it is illegal 

to be paid anything less than minimum wage so if my piece rate did not meet the minimum 

wage requirement, I would then be paid 5.15 an hour. I had days were I took call after call 

and managed to average around $10 an hour, however on most days I barely made minimum 

wage. Piece rate has an appeal to the naive mind, however having experience the wage loss 

of piece rate I am very aware that I fell victim to the capitalist mindset. 

First Message by BBQ is [169]. 

Term Paper 822 is 922 in 1999SP, 922 in 2000fa, 922 in 2001fa, 822 in 2002fa, 822 in 

2003fa, and 822 in 2004fa: 

Term Paper 822 Essay about Chapter Twenty-Two: National Differences of Wages 

[1524] Parmenio, MrPink, Dandy, and Pisciphiliac: Chapter 22 is a detailed analysis 

of the factors that determine wages and how they contribute to the differences in national 

wages. Marx makes comparisons between countries of different capitalistic development 


and the resulting real wage. Our objective in this paper is to summarize Marx’s analysis and 

to apply his theories to current times. 

The factors that Marx discovered to influence the wages in a particular county are best 

summarized by Marx himself as “the price and the extent of the prime necessities of life 

as naturally and historically developed, the cost of training the laborers, the part played 

by the labor of women and children, the productivity of labor, its extensive and intensive 

magnitude.” 

Every country has its own average intensity of labor. The national labor average is going 

to fluctuate with that intensity. The more intense the average is, the more value will be 

created and this will result in more money. He continues to discuss the productivity. The 

more productive the labor is, the higher the intensity will be and this will result in more 

value. There is one caveat to the last point, this will only hold true as long as there is not 

competition from other countries putting downward pressure on the selling price. 

To quote Blacksun and Casio [2004fa:533]; “A country with a higher average intensity 

will produce more value, and hence more money. As a country becomes more entrenched in 

the capitalist mode of production, national labor intensity and productivity increase proportionately.” 

If we have the same commodity being produced by two countries taking the same amount 

of working time, we can predict the following; in more developed countries the relative 

wages will be lower and the nominal wages will be higher, but real wages may be lower. 

Marx illustrates this point with his look at the Spinning Industry. His example shows that 

in Great Britain you have more spindles per person (74 per person) than in the continental 

countries (For example: Russia has only 28 per person). He makes the point that as the 

spindles per person increases each laborer has to increase their intensity of labor in order to 

keep up. However, those countries that do not have access to the technology are going to 

have to lengthen their work day. 

To compare wages in different countries Marx says we must do certain manipulations. 

First we must reduce the average day wage for the same trades in different countries to 

a uniform working day. After this reduction, time wage needs to be translated into piece 

wage. This means price per produced article. The reason we do this is because the only 

basis of comparison between countries has to be productivity and intensity of labor. 

Using this basis of comparison Marx acknowledges that real wages are higher in more 

developed countries than in the less developed countries. Marx states that using this measure 

each country has an intensity of labor, which is measured against a universal standard that 

is an average of all countries. How do the less developed countries measure up to the welldeveloped 

countries? Marx acknowledges that as capitalist production develops in a country 

the national intensity and productivity rise above the international level. Wage becomes 

higher than in the less developed countries but the relative surplus value of labor stands 

higher in the second then the first. 

A simple case in point; the use of women and children in foreign countries fits Marx’s 

model of intensity and productivity. Even though wages are lower, the productivity is lower


and the labor power becomes higher. In countries not using women and children the degree 

of productivity is higher which lowers the value per unit of the goods. 

Our opinions when applying Marx’s theory to the modern world, there is definitely a 

disparity between the United States and other third world countries when comparing the intensity, 

productivity and technology of agricultural processes. One example is that producers 

in the U.S. have better access to capital and technology than in Mexico. Therefore, the U.S. 

will have a higher productivity per worker than in Mexico. This disparity will result in U.S. 

laborers having a higher nominal wage and the laborers in Mexico may have a higher real 

wage. 

One modern day result is that migrant workers from Mexico cross the borders to the U.S. 

to earn U.S. wage rates and then return to Mexico, paying Mexican prices. This is going to 

increase the individual Mexican worker’s buying power. 

Marx concludes this chapter with a critique of Henry Charles Carey (1793-1879). Carey 

was an American economist who advocated protectionism efforts to deter the influences of 

Great Britain. Marx blasts Carey who in “Essays on the Rate of Wages” claims that in 

international relations wages rises and fall in proportion to productiveness of labor. Marx 

said this conclusion is false. He says that state intervention in the form of taxes have effected 

economic relations. Carey’s theory does not take this into consideration. 

However Carey may have been right about the increase of productivity leading to an 

increase in wages, because there does seem to be a correlation to higher productivity and 

higher wages. But we also see a higher rate of exploitation too. For example if someone 

in a high productivity country produced 50 shoes in a day, they might get paid for 20 shoes 

(60% of the value), in a less developed country a worker might produce 20 shoes, and get 

paid 15 shoes for their labor (75% of the value they created). As the example points out the 

person in the more developed country gets paid more, but they also get exploited more by 

the capitalist. 

Hans: How in the world did you get the idea that the real wages of Mexican workers are higher than those of 

workers in the US? 

Today just as at Marx’s time real wages are higher in the more developed countries than in the less developed 

countries. Marx does not deny this. 

At the end of the paragraph with the spindles you had written that the countries with lower productivity have 

to increase their labor intensity. I think you meant, and Marx himself meant, that they have to lengthen their work 

day, and I corrected it in the archives. 

Carey concludes from this that wages in general rise with productivity. This would be a theory of wages 

diametrically opposed to Marx’s, and Marx is looking for ways to explain these international wage differences in 

the framework of his own theory. 

For this, Marx looks at the different ways how wages can be measured, which may give different results. 

One important finding in favor of Marx’s theory is that the rate of exploitation is higher in the more developed 

countries, i.e., the relative wage (relatively to the surplus-value) is lower. 

Finally, Marx also talks about “modifications of the law of value” in the international sphere. This is important. 

Marx tries to explain most phenomena as expressions of the law of value, but in the international area there are 

some modifications. 

Parmenio: We didn’t come to the conclusion that Mexican workers real wages are higher than the US, in fact we 

came to the opposite conclusion. We stated that Mexican immigrants were jumping the border to get the US higher 

wages, but then returning to their home country to spend the money (or sending it to their relatives there, which is 


a major source of money to Mexico), so they were being paid for by higher US wages but paying lower Mexican 

prices, thus the real wage was higher for those that did this. 

Perhaps we didn’t word it properly, but when we say “Mexican” we meant to say “Mexican who worked in the 

US”. We all thought our point was rather explicit, only a nut job would say that real wages were higher in Mexico 

than the US. 

Hans: I wish you had been this critical before submitting your paper with the sentence “This disparity will result 

in U.S. laborers having a higher nominal wage and the laborers in Mexico may have a higher real wage.” 

Message [1524] referenced by [1648], [1664], and [1795]. Next Message by Parmenio is [1638]. 

[1539] Keltose, Snickers, and Gdubmoe: content C+ form 80% Before we discuss the 

national differences in wages, we must first understand the concepts brought up by Marx in 

chapter 17. Marx simply states, “The value of labour-power is determined by the value of 

the means of subsistence habitually required by the average worker” (Pg. 655). Therefore, 

the worker will work as much as needed to provide for his means. Some points to be aware 

of when comparing chapter 17 to chapter 22 is the magnitude of the labour-power, and what 

the worker needs to live. Also the cost associated with developing the power along with the 

natural diversity of labour power, as seen in women, men, children. 

Marx identifies that differences in wages and other countries is partly because different 

nations have different working hours and days. In order for a countries to arrive to a uniform 

working day, countries must translate the time wage into a piece wage. This gives a more 

uniform working day. The piece wage is the means of production divided by the intensity 

of labor. Another reason why there are differences in wages is because of productivity 

issues. Some countries are more efficient than others. This is because they have the means 

of production to do so. The world market is made up of other nations’ wages. These wages 

are raised and lowered by fluctuations in the larger countries. Thus, the average intensity of 

labor is determined largely by more capitalist countries. In simpler terms; the more value 

per product=more wages. When a nation can use technology to produce a valuable product, 

the worker is working less and getting paid more. Whereas less developed workers must 

work harder, and become less efficient because of the lack of capital and technology. 

The national differences in wages is explained in the Law of Value. Such that countries 

which are developed and can produce more of a valued commodity, will get more money 

and profits. This is because they are able to be more labor intensive. However, on an 

international level we see that there are many countries and many values. . . different 

prices and different wages. This inequality correlated to a chain reaction, or cycle. Many 

workers/nations cannot break the cycle. the relative value money is therefor less in more 

developed, capitalized countries. 

The reason why Marx quotes J.W. Cowell on page 703 is because he gives a perfect 

example of England and other nations. He explains in countries like England the workers 

work 8 hours to complete the work necessary, whereas poorer workers in other countries 

in Europe have to work 15 hours to do the same job. The work is less productive and less 

intensive. Because the English have the means and the technology, the less developed need 

the labor in order to survive. Labor in rich countries is actually cheaper because there are 

more provisions. If a machine can do the job that only a skilled worker can do then paying a 

worker to push a button is cheaper than paying a skilled worker to spin fabric. Even though


more work/time may go into a product in a poorer country, the apparent price Marx states is 

usually lower. 

Relating the differences in wages to more modern times we can see how lessons in the past 

with England. They were able to produce more and earn more. It is easy to see how more 

productivity is better. But these countries are being compared to others with no resources. 

One thing to bring up of importance is that in many less developed countries income and 

state taxes are harder to enforce. So even though the English may earn more, the amount of 

net pay is unknown. The poorer workers bring home more per dollar. 

With globalization engulfing our world, the words of Marx ring loud when he stated, 

that it is “trade which destroys the inborn beauties and harmonies of the capitalist mode of 

production, [ . . .], the one evil in capitalist production is capital itself” (pg. 706). That 

statement sums up why the poor worker cannot break free. He is lacking the evil part of the 

thing he wants. 

Hans: You are confusing cause and effect when you say in the first paragraph, regarding the value of labor-power, 

“the worker will work as much as needed to provide for his means.” This is only what it looks like to the worker. 

The worker thinks: if wages are $10 an hour, I have to work 50 hours a week to pay my bills. According the Marx, 

this is a big setup. If the cost of living is $500 per week, and the capitalists want the workers to work 50 hours per 

week, they pay them $10 per hour. They could pay much more, but they prefer to pocket the difference as profits. 

Having a higher intensity of labor is not the same as being more labor intensive. 

Overall one gets the impression that you picked a few words out of each paragraph of Marx’s text and then 

wove a story around these words. The result is almost funny; this is not at all the same thing as analyzing and 

understanding a text. You picked one of the more unclear and enigmatic chapters of Marx. Other chapters are much 

easier to decipher. 


[1648] Bubba: graded A I’ll discuss here the paper [1524] analysis of chapter 22’s points 

on real wages, on which the paper is inconsistent. 

The group states: “. . . we can predict the following; in more developed countries the 

relative wages will be lower and the nominal wages will be higher, but real wages may be 

lower.” The last phrase states that the developed country’s real wages may be lower. 

Later, talking just about real wages, the group states: “Using this basis of comparison 

Marx acknowledges that real wages are higher in more developed countries than in the less 

developed countries.” 

These are contradictory: One or the other is correct. 

Marx’s remark on real wages was as follows: after mentioning that nominal wages are 

higher in the developed country, he states, “. . . which does not at all prove that this 

holds also for the real wages, i.e., for the means of subsistence placed at the disposal of the 

labourer.” This endorses the group’s first statement. 

Marx discussed how the relative value of money (purchasing power) is lower in the developed 

nation. This means that you need more money to buy the same commodity in 

a developed nation than in an undeveloped one. This point ties into the whole chapter’s 

discussion of how there is more value in the larger quantity of products produced by the 

developed nation. Therefore, even though the developed nation’s products bring in more 


money on the international market, they cost more at home – even though the laborer’s wage 

may be higher, he can actually buy less with it at home in the developed country. 

The group’s example of the Mexican migrant workers illustrates that real wages are usually 

if not always lower in developed countries. If this were not true, and puchasing power 

was higher in the US for the wage they receive, they would spend the money here and (assuming 

customs would let them) take the commodities back to Mexico. The relative value 

of money is lower in the US than in Mexico. 

Hans: You are right to point out this inconsistency. Elsewhere, not in chapter 22, Marx says that real wages are 

usually higher in the more developed countries. 


[1664] PAE: response. I think you all did a very good job on the layout and presentation 

of ideas in the essay [1524]. The description of Marx’s ideas was excellent and I know it 

can’t always be easy reading and interpreting his chapters. 

It think the idea of comparing wages is especially important in today’s society with companies 

constantly moving industrial facilities to other countries. In an early part of your 

essay you all mention that one stipulation to the comparing of wages is that there can be no 

competition from other countries putting downward pressure on the selling price. While I 

can see why Marx makes this statement, it is very hard for me to understand how we can 

accurately apply this model of comparing international wages in today’s market because international 

competition on goods does exist. This is made evident by the increase in foreign 

products we have in all our stores. How would you all reply to this? 

Also how do you think Marx would react to the domestic companies placing industrial 

plants in other countries to take advantage of cheaper labor, and how would that alter this 

model? It would have to have an effect on the average nominal and real wage. In today’s 

world I think wages are affected by the threat of outsourcing as much or more than price 

competition. 

As I said before I think the essay was very informative and put together well. I would 

like to know what you guys thought about outsourcing and other current international issues 

when looking at average wages. 

Hans: Excellent questions. 


[1795] Pisciphiliac: graded A PAE asked in [1664], in response to our group paper [1524]: 

“I would like to know what you guys thought about outsourcing...” 

We avoided the outsourcing topic because it had been touched upon in previous group 

papers. Blacksun and Casio [2004fa:533] summed it up nicely: 

“If wages are really more costly in a country with a lower degree of capitalism, 

how is it that outsourcing can be profitable? The answer is that 

companies that outsource also bring their means of production and capitalist 

methods with them. Since the ”cheap labor“ is only more expensive in 

its less productive state, these companies can semi-adequately fund the laborers 

for much less and then sell their products on the U.S. market where 

they can fetch more money.”


Hans: It is a little more complicated than that. Marx stresses several times in the chapter that low wages make 

the labor less efficient. The English firms which built railroads in Eastern Europe and Asia had to import English 

workers, apparently not because of their skills but their intensity of labor and work discipline. Outsourcing is not 

always as profitable as expected because the labor has a different character there. But I think today’s information 

revolution is making the learning processes possible which will close this gap. 

First Message by Pisciphiliac is [312]. 

Term Paper 824 is 297 in 1996sp, 524 in 1997WI, 524 in 1997sp, 924 in 1997ut, 924 in 

1998WI, 924 in 2000fa, 924 in 2001fa, 824 in 2002fa, 824 in 2003fa, 721 in 2007SP, and 

699 in 2007fa: 

Term Paper 824 Essay about Chapter Twenty-Four: Transformation of Surplus Value into 

Capital 

[1670] MK: In Chapter 24 Marx considers reproduction on an increasing scale as surplus 

value is converted into capital: “The employment of surplus-value as capital, or its reconversion 

into capital, is called accumulation of capital.” (725). 

The accumulation of capital implies that the means of production and means of subsistence 

that are to be purchased by the reinvested surplus value have in fact been produced, 

thus accumulation depends on a certain physical composition of production. Marx considers 

the implications of the fact that the working class is employed by capital that is the product 

of its own surplus labor. He argues that the real meaning of the laws of private property 

(“laws of appropriation” p. 729) based on the production and circulation of commodities is 

inverted. 

Originally, property develops as property in the product of one’s own labor and exchange 

is the exchange of equivalents. Yet when the capitalist and worker confront one another, 

although every exchange continues to obey the laws of commodity exchange, the relation as 

a whole is one in which capital is “itself merely a portion of the product of labor which has 

been appropriated without an equivalent” that is reproduced, with a surplus, by its producer. 

Thus the form of the relation between capitalist and worker (the form of exchange) becomes 

a mere ‘semblance’ (that only has any reality if we restrict our attention to circulation). The 

content of the relation is quite different, for on the basis of the equal exchange in the sphere 

of circulation, the capitalist is able to appropriate labor without an equivalent in the process 

as a whole. Thus the real law of capitalist appropriation is the inverse of the formal law that 

continues to be the law of appropriation (property law) of commodity production. 

It is only if we focus on individual buyers and sellers (i.e. on circulation) that this reality 

is concealed, for within circulation there is no basis for the class relation between capitalists 

and workers that is at the root of capitalist appropriation (732-3 n.b. Marx is arguing that it is 

only as a class that the exploitation of labor by capital appears (since a particular individual 

is not necessarily employed by a capital that represents his or her own past labor), and that 

classes cannot be conceptualized on the basis of commodity exchange). 

In Section II Marx makes reference to the erroneous conception the political economists’ 

had of reproduction– they believed that all surplus-value is converted into labor-power, as 

capitalists consume it unproductively by taking on more retainers etc, or as they employ it 

for accumulation by taking on productive (of surplus value) laborers. Marx notes that this is 


not the case– the additional capital has to be laid out to buy both labor-power and means of 

production if it is to enter the accumulation process. 

In Section III Marx looks at the development of the concept of capitalists’ saving and 

consumption. This section is particularly interesting because it contains an extended discussion 

of the way in which the motivation of the capitalist develops historically and of the 

way in which political economists’ conception of the capitalist has developed accordingly. 

In the early stages of accumulation the capitalist was compelled to be uncharitable and nonindulgent,and 

political economy contrasted him with the idle aristocrat who wasted capital 

in consumption. 

Thus all consumption by the capitalist was seen as a betrayal of his capitalist duty. Later, 

as accumulation progresses, it becomes possible, and even necessary, for capitalist consumption 

to increase. As the capitalist came to be confronted, from 1848, by the working class, 

rather than the landowner, vulgar economics came to replace political economy. Thus, instead 

of accumulation being considered the very duty of the capitalist, the means by which 

he remained a capitalist, it becomes an act of self-denial, of abstinence from consumption, 

so that profit comes to be seen as the reward for this self-denial. To criticize this view Marx 

simply points out that reproduction on an increasing scale (and so ‘abstinence’ from consumption) 

is characteristic in the economic formations of many kinds of society without 

those societies having capital: abstinence is a universal feature of expanded reproduction, 

while capital is a particular economic category and social relation. 

Given the rate at which capitalists consume out of surplus value, the rate of accumulation 

will depend on the magnitude of surplus value, and thus upon the factors that determine 

that magnitude. Marx discusses such factors as forcing wages below the value of laborpower, 

increasing the duration and/or intensity of labor (so as to economize on means of 

production), and increasing the productivity of labor. An increase in the productivity of 

labor means that the same quantity of goods cost less. Thus the capitalist can maintain 

the same standard of living while increasing the amount of surplus value thrown back into 

production. In the same way a given magnitude of capital can employ more laborers and 

more means of production, and so both the physical and the value rate of accumulation 

increases. As accumulation progresses, the role of past labor, in the form of the instruments 

of labor, increases. Just as with all the powers of labor, this power of past labor comes to 

appear as the power of capital: qualities of the means of production are attributed to the 

specific social form in which they confront labor, i.e. to capital. 

In the final section Marx criticizes the labor-fund theory, that argued that there was only 

a fixed fund available to supply the workers, so that the total wage bill was invariable. Thus, 

if one worker had a pay increase, others would either have their pay reduced or lose their 

lobs. This theory presupposes both that the supple of wage-goods is fixed (and that workers 

cannot infringe on capitalists’ consumption) and that a given number of workers provide a 

given amount of labor (so that a given labor fund sets a fixed limit to accumulation). 

Message [1670] referenced by [1842] and [2007SP:1314]. Next Message by MK is [1676]. 

[1842] Overlord: Paper [1670] is well written but it does lack a sort of personal touch. If 

someone had no knowledge of these topics they could read this paper and have a high level 

of understanding of them. I look through the paper and I see no personal touches. I do see


a lot of transferring of words from the chapter to the paper. This leaves little to argue about. 

What are the authors’ thoughts about chapter 24? Do you agree with Marx? 

For example, in the paper there are two arguments about accumulation. One by Marx and 

the other by the political economists. Marx’s view was “The additional capital has to be laid 

out to buy both labor-power and means of production if it is to enter the accumulation process.” 

The Political economists view was “All surplus-value is converted into labor-power, 

as capitalists consume it unproductively by taking on more retainers etc, or as they employ 

it for accumulation by taking on productive (of surplus value) laborers.” 

If I were to have written on this chapter I would have expanded on this section. Here I 

agree with Marx’s ideas. He gives very specific examples of how to enter into accumulation. 

From the annotation “Second year: old capital as in first year: £12,000 = 8000c+2000v+2000s. 

Surplus value: £2,400 = 1600c+400v+400s. Etc. We all have enough experience with market 

economies to know that this is how it’s being done in the practical ‘business as usual.’ 

For the individual capitalist, accumulation is therefore easy: he treats the surplus-value the 

same way as he treats the backflow of his constant and variable capital.” 

This gives a specific example of how accumulation is achieved. My thought is that more 

comments about his ideas are necessary to understand what Marx was trying to convey. It is 

also necessary to understand that Marx had specific examples behind each of his thoughts. 

Hans: I did not have the impression that [1670] was transferring words from the chapter to the paper. Marx’s 

thoughts were intelligently and accurately condensed. You are right, the paper had little reaction to or comments 

about what Marx wrote. But this is not an absolute requirement for a term paper. You cannot criticize the paper 

for not being what it does not want to be. Had you found inaccuracies in the summaries of the different arguments, 

that would have been a more valid criticism. 

First Message by Overlord is [130]. 

[1854] Jingle: graded B I would have to agree with Overlord. I feel that the paper that 

MK wrote was good, but it really did just follow exactly what the book said, and they never 

gave any examples from the book, or they never gave any opinions on if they thought that 

this was right or wrong in their own opinion. Overlord gave us some numbers, and I think 

that she/he should have explained those numbers, and what they meant. 

The example that I liked best about accumulation is: “Marx talks about the accumulation 

of capital by employing surplus value as capital, and reconverting it into capital. He uses the 

example of the spinner. The spinner starts out with $10,000. He uses 4/5 of that for supplies, 

such as the machinery, raw materials, etc. He uses 1/5 for wages. When the producer sells 

the yarn over the year, he will receive $12,000.” With this money the capitalist invests some 

into capital, and labor. The yarn that is made is then sold at a higher value as to exceed the 

original money. This increase in surplus-value is then put back into capital and labor. The 

production will increase. Capital will begin to generate more capital and correspondingly 

accumulate capital. 

Hans: Such examples were left out because MK wanted to make the great lines of the argument easier to see. You 

are right, Overlord’s example was not very well explained. 

Message [1854] referenced by [489]. First Message by Jingle is [322]. 


Term Paper 826 is 926 in 2000fa, 926 in 2001fa, 826 in 2002fa, 826 in 2003fa, 826 in 


in 2011fa, and 868 in 2012fa: 

Term Paper 826 Essay about Chapter Twenty-Six: Secret of Original Accumulation 

[1438] COMMI and Ernesto: Pre-Submission of Term Paper Draft. Marx begins 

chapter 26 by displaying the circular tendencies within the model of capitalism. It begins 

with the availability of capital and labor power in the hands of commodity producers which 

enables capitalistic production. The purpose is to generate surplus value, wherein it is reinvested 

for the purpose of perpetual accumulation of capital. In order to explain the tendencies 

of capitalism we have to look at the point of departure from primitive accumulation. 

Marx viewed our current model of capitalism as nothing more than a departure from a primitive 

form of accumulation. 

In order to describe this departure Marx provides a common story of progression that 

would appeal to the masses using a popular belief rooted in religious discourse. Primitive 

accumulation was the original sin of capitalism. Contrary to popular belief as Marx stated 

capital accumulation is not derived on the merits of an industrious class enlightening a lazy 

unproductive class, but on the back of exploitation, coercion and ultimately force of one 

group by the other. Unlike Adam’s condemnation to eat his bread from the sweat of his 

brow the bourgeois feasts upon the fruits of the demoralized. 

Marx defines the production of capital through the interaction of money and the means of 

production with the labor forces. 

Primitive accumulation went through its own natural stage of progression fueled by a 

crisis. A deprivation of rights and liberty brought about a continual increase of exploitation. 

The serf and peasant were originally part of the means of production until being replaced by 

free peasant proprietors. The distinguishing difference was the ability of the peasant to sell 

his labor and to also own his land. In order for capitalist to resume accumulation, labor had 

to be bought. 

Similar to cancer capitalism continues to thrive of existing resource endowments, the 

human body, in order to survive. In essence the cyclical existence 

We would like to know if we are on the right track. All feedback is welcome. 


[1443] Hans: The circularity of capital accumulation. Since COMMI and Ernesto 

sent their pre-submission to das-kapital@marx.economics.utah.edu, it was forwarded to 

everyone in the class. If you want it to be more private, you have to send it to examresubs@marx.economics.utah.edu, 

then I will be the only one who sees it. 

But they are asking for any input, therefore let’s make this a joint project. If you send 

feedback to their term paper draft using the same question number then I am willing to count 

this as a term paper discussion for you. 

In this message here I will try to clarify just one of the points they were not quite sure 

about. At the beginning of chapter 26, Marx says, roughly: capitalists can only accumulate,


i.e., increase their capital, if they make profits, but for profits they need to be able to exploit 

workers, but for this they need already a considerable amount of capital. 

Marx calls this a “defective circle” because they can only accumulate because they have 

been able to accumulate already. Marx continues that we can only escape this circle if we 

assume a prior non-capitalistic accumulation. 

What is going on here? Think of an internal combustion engine: if you try to explain 

how it works you will probably say that the pistons are compressed by the revolving motor, 

and then the spark plug fires and the explosion turns the motor forward. In other words, you 

must assume that the motor is already running in order to explain how it runs. Marx would 

call this a “defective circle” too, and he would say: This only explains how it keeps running, 

but now how it starts running. And indeed, at the beginning you need a starter, i.e., the motor 

must be turned over by a different mechanism than the nice spark plugs and fuel injection 

mechanism of the internal combustion engine itself. 

The same thing is going on with capitalism. The mechanisms explored in chapters 1-25 

can only explain capitalism on the basis that there is already a polarization of wealth and 

poverty, that on the one hand there are the workers who have nothing to sell than their laborpower, 

and on the other there are the capitalists who have enough money to employ these 

laborers. 

But originally, this polarization must have been created by an extra-capitalist mechanism, 

because capitalism doesn’t work if you don’t have this polarization. This is what Marx calls 

the “primitive” or “previous” or “original” accumulation. It is the starter hidden somewhere 

in the history of capitalism. 

Just as someone who understands internal combustion engines knows that every car must 

have a starter under the hood, otherwise it would never be able to run, so we can infer from 

our knowledge of the mechanics of capital accumulation that at some time in history there 

must have been a non-capitalist process in which the direct producers were separated from 

their means of production, and the capitalists could amass enough money to hire them as 

wage laborers. This process is the subject of chapter 26. 

There are other things that need explanation. Can someone explain what Marx means 

with his metaphor of the “original sin” also at the very beginning pages of the chapter? 

Message [1443] referenced by [1449], [1563], [1608], [2007SP:1258], [2007SP:1318], [2007SP:1319], and [2008SP:775]. 


[1444] Ernesto: The circularity of capital accumulation term paper discussion response. 

Could the non-capitalist consumer be the church? Back in the day they played a 

major role in investment and property endowments. They definitely had the capital necessary 

to generate more capital. 

I see the comparison of the story of Adam to the natural progression of economics. A 

state of innocence existed until the fall of man. Mortality is now the process of progression 

back into the presence of god. Primitive accumulation spurring the advent of capitalism 

seems like the natural stages of progression Marx assumed an economy would have to go 

through leading up to a social utopia. 



[1449] Hans: Capitalism as the original sin. In response to my question in [1443] 

about the meaning of the metaphor of the ‘original sin’ at the beginning of chapter 26, 

Ernesto, one of the authors of the termpaper presubmission, gave the interpretation in [1444] 

that capitalism itself is the original sin, a falling away from god and loss of innocence, the 

redemption of which will lead to a social utopia. 

First of all, this is a very dialectical figure, it is negation of negation. You start out with 

innocence; the negation of this is sin, and then the negation of this the overcoming of sin in 

which one regains a higher state in the presence of god. 

Marx does indeed see capitalism as being instrumental in such a dialectical progresson, 

not one involving humans and god, but one involving the relationship between individual 

and society. In very early societies, individuals were subordinate to the social group they 

lived in. It was a state of innocence in that they were protected and shielded by the tribe or 

community, but everything they were they were through the tribe. Marx says in 452:1/o that 

the “umbilical chord” (navel string) between individual and tribe was not yet severed; they 

were as dependent on the tribe as the bee is on the hive. 

But individual notice how powerful they are on their own terms and therefore rebel 

against this social entanglement. In the Middle Ages they would be burned at the stake 

for the sin of not accepting their god-given place in society, but in capitalism this individual 

self-interest is encouraged. But now the pendulum is going too far in the other direction: 

people become too isolated, they deny their social interconnection and just confront each 

other as competitors. This does not lead to a triumph of the individual over society, but 

individual life histories are sucked into the cycle of the accumulation of capital. 

Capitalism is such an all-pervasive social relation that it can only be overcome if individuals 

generally manage to better control their social relations. The next step on the historical 

agenda is therefore a non-alienated society in which individuals, for the first time in history, 

consciously sculpt the social relations in which they are embedded. The individual is still the 

more important pole. Society is like a garden, a fertile and benign backdrop for individual 

flourishing. Instead of a return of humans to god this seems more related to a deification of 

the humans themselves. 

After having said all this, I still don’t think this is what Marx meant at the beginning of 

chapter 26. Please read the text itself more closely. It is not always easy to read something 

and extract from the text the meaning the author had in mind, instead of using isolated 

elements of the text as a jumping-off point for one’s own ideas. 


[1563] COMMI and Ernesto: Marx begins chapter 26 by displaying the circular tendencies 

within the model of capitalism. It begins with the availability of capital and labor power 

in the hands of commodity producers which enables capitalistic production. The purpose is 

to generate surplus value, wherein it is reinvested for the purpose of perpetual accumulation 

of capital. In order to explain the tendencies of capitalism we have to look at the point of 

departure from primitive accumulation. Marx viewed our current model of capitalism as 

nothing more than a departure from a primitive form of accumulation.


In order to describe this departure Marx provides a common story of progression that 

would appeal to the masses using a popular belief rooted in religious discourse. Primitive 

accumulation was the original sin of capitalism. Contrary to popular belief as Marx stated 

capital accumulation is not derived on the merits of an industrious class enlightening a lazy 

unproductive class, but on the back of exploitation, coercion and ultimately force of one 

group by the other. Unlike Adam’s condemnation to eat his bread from the sweat of his 

brow the bourgeois feasts upon the fruits of the demoralized. Marx defines the production of 

capital through the interaction of money and the means of production with the labor forces. 

In our discovery of pre-capitalist mechanisms we encountered a few possible catalysts 

to the exploitive system. Nobility and men of noble heritage were the first to accumulate 

wealth without using the sweat of their own brow. They themselves also participated in 

accumulation thus we must search further back to find the original sin. As Marx pointed out 

in chapter 13 the primitive nature of Indian communities was based on common ownership 

of the conditions of production and like a bee a predestined component of the labor force for 

the benefit of the common good. 

Tribal warfare on the other hand led to the enslavement of one people by the other allowing 

a primitive form of hoarding. One could argue that in the European model the Catholic 

Church enslaved a people, not by war, but rather a dogmatic way of life. In chapter 27 Marx 

references to the function which the Catholic Church played in land endowments favoring 

nobility and those who had the purchasing power to make a bid on the Church’s property. 

Primitive accumulation went through its own natural stage of progression fueled by a 

crisis. A deprivation of rights and liberty brought about a continual increase of exploitation. 

The serf and peasant were originally part of the means of production until being replaced by 

free peasant proprietors. The distinguishing difference was the ability of the peasant to sell 

his labor and to also own his land. In order for capitalist to resume accumulation, labor had 

to be bought. 

In the attempt to pinpoint the cause of accumulation Hans eloquently compares capitalism 

to a combustion engine [1443]. An explanation of how the engines stay running fails to 

explain the origin of its existence. The enslavement of the minds and wills of the people 

provided the proper foundation for the advent of primitive accumulation. Built within the 

frameworks of capitalism slavery endures an evolutionary process enabling the capitalist to 

eat his bread of the back of the proletariat. 


[1567] Avatar and Thugtorious: graded A Term Paper Chapter 26 Primitive Accumulation. 

A Logical Analysis of Chapter 26 

The age old adage of “you get out what you put in” is taught to every Econ 2020 and 

classical economics student. Capitalism is argued to be the byproduct of the endeavors of 

a few highly motivated “go getters” that operates via the voluntary labor of the “lazy.” It 

would seem that in order for this to be the case, at some point in time, each and every person 

began at the same socioeconomic level with the same initial endowments. Classical economics 

suggests that capital ownership comes from those favorable virtues of entrepreneurship, 

tenacity, business savvy, etc. Unfortunately, capitalism’s conception did not happen behind a 


“veil of ignorance” where each person had no initial wealth and was rewarded in proportion 

to their zeal for success. No, capitalism’s conception was written in “letters of blood and 

fire” at the expense of the masses (Marx, p 875). 

Marx argued that between the end of the feudal mode of production and capitalistic mode 

there was a period of primitive accumulation where laborers were “free(d) from . . . any 

means of production of their own” (Marx, p 874). In order to talk about Primitive Accumulation 

as a period that existed before capitalism and after feudalism and understanding 

must be met to define the temporal nature of the two periods. The historical era of capitalism 

is marked by a change in the mode of production, but this change was not constituted 

by technological advances and new characteristics in the technique or “state of productive 

forces” (Dobb, p 7). These elements played a role in creating an environment where the 

direct producer was separated from the means of production. This “divorcing [of] the producer 

from the means of production” itself immediately preceded and induced the emergence 

of capitalism (Marx, 875). Marx calls this divorcing period the era of Primitive Accumulation. 

Because classical economists explained away inequitable concentrations of capital 

and wealth within the capitalist economy with “capitalist comfortable” ideas about the early 

behavior of industrious capitalists and the lazy proletariat, and described capitalism as an 

always present form in human economic history, the characteristics and even the existence 

of the Primitive Accumulation have been neglected by mainstream economics. After careful 

study, the process and effect of Primitive Accumulation is seen as necessarily preceding and 

setting in motion the sustaining capitalist accumulation that occurs under the capitalist mode 


Feudal society was based on stewardship of the land: nobody outright owned the parcel. 

Each occupant played an integral part in the overall function of the manor. The serfs provided 

agricultural labor to sustain life, the nobles and lords provided protection from foreign 

elements, and the clergy provided spiritual salvation. The land itself was God’s and those 

living upon it merely were the caretakers. This “reciprocal obligation” was the crux of the 

sustainability and functioning of each manor. There was no need to import or export any 

goods nor any reason to have contact with other manors. Unfortunately, to the detriment of 

the laborers, the Age of Exploration and the multiplying population began to erode away 

this perpetual dependence. 

Mainstream economic thought suggests that the expansion of trade and the growth of 

moneyed economies upset and ultimately dissolved Feudalism. This is proved false by evidence 

showing that Feudal decline was sewn into the economic fabric of feudalism. By 

showing that capitalism did not bring about the end of feudalism, but emerged at some interval 

after feudalism had already ended, we prove the existence of a period of time between 

feudalism and capitalism - this period is Primitive Accumulation. The fundamental problem 

of feudalism was scarcity of land. Because there was no incentive to improve agricultural 

technology, and the population of medieval Europe was increasing, feudalism was doomed 

to eventually fail when the availability of land for cultivation was exceeded by the amount 

the population demanded for subsistence. Although moneyed economies are not the cause 

of feudal breakdown, their prevalence did act as a catalyst for other direct causes. The large 

influx of precious metals into Europe during the Age of Exploration introduced a new class


of wealthy merchants. This new wealthy merchant class as well as the huge inflation rates 

associated with them put pressure on the nobility of feudal society. The pressure felt by the 

nobility class to create revenue was one aspect which brought about the Enclosure Movement 

which was the event consisting of the expulsion or “divorcing” of the serfs from their 

means or production: the manors. It was instigated by nobility in response to monetary 

pressure that was building as the new merchant class was gaining economic power. 

After the serfs were expelled from the manors, the nobles effectively owned the manors 

for the first time. This Enclosure Movement served a two-fold purpose in primitive accumulation: 

first, the expulsion of the serfs from the land created a landless class with no means 

to produce subsistence on their own; second, the ownership of land gave the nobles a way 

to procure money by selling deeds to merchants. Merchants found themselves in a buyers 

market because of the struggling nobility’s need to pay debts and maintain an illustrious 

lifestyle and the merchant’s huge supply of money. The outcome for the merchants was 

good because soon after this exchange period, the cost of labor and raw materials was low 

enough to allow factory work and industrialism; this was the birth of capitalism. Although 

the early merchants were buying low, transporting, selling high, and accruing some capital, 

it is important to remember that the birth of capitalism was the result of a new mode of production, 

not the accumulation of capital earlier. The problem with the classical economist’s 

disregard of the Primitive Accumulation centers on the size and distribution of early capital. 

The suggestion that working hard and saving your money during the Enclosure Movement 

was enough to create capitalists is flawed. The accumulation is too substantial and happened 

too quickly to be the work of a steady accumulation due to saving extra income. Moreover, 

the distribution of early capital presents a problem for the classical view of early capitalism 

because of the huge discrepancies in wealth. Early capitalists were individuals who seized 

land, exploited raw materials from poor regions and relied on the power of gold looted from 

tribes in America during the Age of Exploration, not thrifty hard workers; and the proletariat 

was born from landless penniless ex-serfs who, after The Enclosure Movement, were 

left with nothing but their labor power to sell. 

It is easy to assume away a lot of the historical relevance of Marx’s thought by asserting 

that capitalism is omnipresent with every other system working up to it, not time specific, 

and that it is fueled by entrepreneurship. Unfortunately, chapter 26 pulls back the “veil of 

ignorance” and sheds some light on the period of primitive accumulation showing it as an 

atrocious period in which men disregarded any sense of brotherhood and held onto for dear 

life whatever tangible property that they could. There is no logical way to show that at any 

point since the beginning of time there has been an equitable distribution of endowments 

and wealth, especially not during the period between feudalism and capitalism. Once you 

see that there was no “starting line” for capitalism then the next logical step is to accept a 

period of primitive accumulation in which the means of production were stripped away from 

the producers. Plain and simple! 

Bibliography: Dobb, Maurice H. Studies in the Development of Capitalism. International 

Publishers Co., University of Cambridge: 1964. 



[1608] Tomek and Miron: The 26th chapter of “Capital” by Marx is called “The secret of 

primitive accumulation”. It is not difficult to guess that the matter concerns accumulation, its 

origin and features. From the very beginning the author outlines a process of accumulation in 

the following way: producers have capital and the labor-force and these conditions stipulate 

capitalistic production, which provides surplus value, which in its turn causes a primitive 

accumulation of capital. Karl Marx supposes that the starting point of accumulation is a 

capitalistic production. 

Moreover, Marx considers the accumulation plays the same role in political economy 

as the “original sin in theology” and correlates these concepts to the same period. Marx 

divides people on two basic categories: those who work hard and those who do not (also 

known as the working class and the capitalists). The working class wills to work but does 

not have the means of production and any other kinds of property while capitalists do have 

the means of production and property. So the capitalists exploit the labor of workers and 

increase their own capital and prevent workers from obtaining the means of production. As 

far as producers (workers) need to earn their living they have to take jobs from capitalists 

and receive trifling wages; they can not be self-employed so far. 

In order to transform money or goods into capital there are needed two persons owning 

different commodities and money, which can contact in some way and make an exchange. 

Thus at least one of them increases the value he or she possesses. These are the basics of 

capitalistic production mode and Marx concludes that primitive accumulation is the same 

(namely historically ‘divorcing the producer from the means of production’). In the process 

of accumulation capitalists increase their capital and centralize the production of commodities 

in their hands more and more and at the same time laborers are exploited more. 

Marx believes that feudal society gave birth to the capitalistic society when serfage was 

cancelled and the laborers were not fastened to the soil any more, and became free. In 

order to illustrate this point Marx gives the following example: when a ‘slave’ or the laborer 

escapes from his ‘owner’ or feudal, he becomes a free worker (so called wage-worker) from 

that moment and needs a market to sale his labor-power there. But he still has to take 

job from another feudal (in order to make his labor materialized) and there is no a single 

guarantee that the work conditions will change for the better. So Karl Marx called this a 

“vicious circle”. In capitalistic society everything just as in feudal concerning exploitation 

or servitude of the workers (it is slightly transformed). Each country goes through this 

process which lies in expropriation of the soil first of all and then the means of production 

from laborers beginning from the agriculture and finishing with other trades. Marx dates all 

these developments to the 14th and 15th centuries. 

During exploitation the self-consciousness of laborers increases and revolution occurs 

when oppressed people run to extremes. 

Hans: Your first paragraph apparently wants to be a summary of the first paragraph in chapter 26. But you entirely 

missed the meaning of it, despite my [1443] in which I tried to explain Marx’s reasoning. As Avatar noted in [1618], 

you do not even seem to notice that there is a difference between capitalist accumulation discussed in chapter 25 

and the so-called “primitive” or “original” accumulation discussed in chapter 26. 

In your second paragraph you missed it that Marx is highly critical of this fable, which in its mainstream 

versions depicts the capitalists as the industrious and the workers as the lazy ones. This laziness is the workers’


alleged “original sin” for which they suffer now. Marx generally denies that an anecdote from the past can be the 

explanation of the inequalities in today’s capitalism. 

In your third paragraph you missed it that the exchange between capitalist and laborer not only presupposes 

that they have different commodities, but that it will only happen if the whole society is polarized into workers 

deprived of their means of production and capitalists who own them on a large scale. Capitalism itself creates such 

a polarization, but at the very beginning of capitalism, this polarization must have been brought about by different 

means, otherwise capitalism would never have taken off. 

Message [1608] referenced by [1618]. Next Message by Tomek is [1674]. 

[1618] Avatar: graded A Critique of chapter 26 term paper. I do not really agree with 

the presentation of Chapter 26 given in [1608]. Although a lot of the information given in 

this essay is “true”, it doesn’t really explain or give much extra insight to what Primitive 

Accumulation really is. 

The essay states: “26th chapter of ”Capital“ by Marx is called ”The secret of primitive 

accumulation“. It is not difficult to guess that the matter concerns accumulation, its origin 

and features.” 

That statement is not really true. The “matter” is not accumulation; the matter is Primitive 

Accumulation, which is something different. Accumulation is an ongoing feature of 

capitalism by which capital grows by the accumulation cycle (labor-power, surplus value, 

expanded capital: see page 473-486 in the annotations for details on this). Primitive Accumulation 

is something that occurred in the past and put this on-going accumulation into 

motion. It is the how, why, who has what, and how much do they have of capital, when 

capitalism first began. Marx calls it a “secret”. I think he is implying that it’s a “dirty little 

secret” about the unfair and exploitive way that capitalists of Marx’s time (and today) got to 

be rich capitalists and why the majority of the population labors for the capitalists without 

the means of production that would allow them to labor for themselves. 

The essay also states: “The working class wills to work but does not have the means of 

production and any other kinds of property while capitalists do have the means of production 

and property. So the capitalists exploit the labor of workers and increase their own capital 

and prevent workers from obtaining the means of production.” 

Again, I don’t think this is totally accurate. True, the working class lacks the means of 

production, but they DO have other property. There are millions of working-class people 

in this country who own homes and other property. There is a difference between owning 

property and owning the means of production. Again, it is true that capitalist are exploiting 

surplus value from workers, but capitalist don’t prevent workers from obtaining the means 

of production- it is capital itself that is suppressing the working class. See the reference to 

the “golden chain” in Chapter 25. 

For the rest of the essay, it seems like the authors continue to use the terms “accumulation” 

and “primitive accumulation” without much regard for the difference between the two. 

Personally I think that the essay seems more like a summary of some of the things learned 

over the progress of this course than a close reading and summary or personal reaction to 

the implications of Primitive Accumulation. 

Message [1618] referenced by [1608]. Next Message by Avatar is [1621]. 

[1652] Astclair: In response to Commi and Ernesto [1563]: 


Marx points out a solid theory on the original sin here, but I do not think he believes that 

it is an absolute theory as Commi and Ernesto write. It seems that Marx presents his theory 

as the dominant one, but he does not completely discredit the theory that the industrious 

class rallied the lazy class. As Commi and Ernesto put it, “Primitive accumulation was the 

original sin of capitalism. Contrary to popular belief, as Marx stated, capital accumulation 

is not derived on the merits of an industrious class enlightening a lazy unproductive class, 

but on the back of exploitation, coercion and ultimately force of one group by the other” I 

do not get the same absolutism out of this chapter. 

From the text: “The legend of theological original sin tells us certainly how 

man came to be condemned to eat his bread in the sweat of his brow; but 

the history of economic original sin reveals to us that there are people to 

whom this is by no means essential.” The key point here is, there are people 

to whom this is by no means essential. This statement shows that Marx is 

allowing for there to be different groups of people. 

Is it not possible that a large portion of capitalism could have been born out of innovation? 

For example, if there are 100 sandal makers and one of them creates a device that allows 

him to produce 10 times as many sandals as before he would have an advantage. But the 

problem is if he could operate another device he could make 20 times more. So he convinces 

someone, for a fair wage, to operate one device so he can operate a second one, and this can 

go on and on until he has 99 sandal makers working for him. This worker seems to have 

become a capitalist through innovation as he had no more initial capital than his competitors. 

My point being, there are many origins to which capitalism may be drawn from. To 

narrow it down to just one, or one primary source, seems to be an oversimplification. 

Hans: The step from an independent trademan or peasant to a wage laborer is a huge loss in self-determination 

and dignity. People did not do this voluntarily, this was a violent process of expropriation. 

Innovation usually came after many people co-operated in the same production process. It became a factor only 

after capitalism was already entrenched. The early capitalists just took over the traditional production methods. 


[1658] Avatar: graded A Your critique of paper 26 (Commi and Ernesto) [1652] seems 

misguided because it seems like you are taking issue with Marx saying that primitive accumulation 

caused capitalism and that saying so is an over simplification. I don’t think Marx 

is trying to make a causation argument here. 

My feeling isn’t that Marx is trying to say capitalism was caused by primitive accumulation; 

he is saying something about the distribution of capital in the first “moments” of 

capitalism. No doubt there were industrious capitalists who thought, or worked hard to become 

rich capitalists, but your idea about the smart sandal maker, who pays someone a fair 

wage to operate their sandal machine is where you miss the point. Primitive accumulation 

is addressing the bigger question: why would someone be in a position to need, or want to 

work for the guy who had the sandal machine? Why are there a handful of wealthy capitalists 

and millions of propertyless poor all of a sudden? Marx is saying that capital was in 

fact unequally distributed from the start of capitalism and the guy who had nothing and then 

worked hard and made himself into a capitalist in some sort of “fair” way is the exception, 

not the rule.




2004fa, 727 in 2007SP, 701 in 2007fa, 709 in 2008SP, 745 in 2009fa, 839 in 2011fa, and 

869 in 2012fa: 

Term Paper 832 Essay about Chapter Thirty-Two: Historical Tendency of Capitalist Accumulation 

[1570] Gza: graded A GZA: Group Term Paper (completed individually with the prior 

consent of Hans) 

Chapter 32: The Historical Tendency of Capitalist Accumulation. 

Within this chapter Marx provides an account of historical accumulation and the evolution 

or progression to modern accumulation. He begins with an analysis of private property, 

small scale industry, and effects on labor. Marx then transitions into an account of exploitation, 

specifically of the “alien” by the capitalists. He argues the capitalist is able to control 

exploitative production, monopolizing all advantages of development through laws of production 

and through the centralization of capital. Marx however, concludes with a forecast 

that sees the capitalistic mode of production failing. The centralization of the means of 

production that is required by the capitalists to maintain their state of power becomes incompatible 

with the capitalist integument. The capitalist mode of appropriation gives rise 

to a natural process of the capitalists’ own negation and destruction. According to Marx the 

transformation of capitalist private property will be done through an engagement of production 

by society into social property. 

The first part of Marx’s analysis of capitalist accumulation is predicated upon the observation 

that the accumulation of capital is the expropriation of immediate producers. This 

can be thought of as the dissolution of private property based on the labour of the owner. 

Marx suggests “private property exists only where the means of labor and the external conditions 

of labour belong to private individuals” (Marx 927). The nature of the individual 

such as s/he being a worker or a non-worker determines the character of private property 

that appears only as a reflection of the individual’s situation. The private property of the 

worker is an essential foundation of small-scale industry that provides the necessary environment 

for social and individual worker production. However, as Marx notes, this eventual 

mode of production exists under oppressive conditions such as slavery and serfdom. Private 

property as a worker’s means of production as it flourishes creates a condition where “the 

worker is the free proprietor of the conditions of his labour” (Marx 927). This state of selfdetermination 

is created by the workers themselves but presupposes the “fragmentation of 

holdings,” the wide dispersal of the means of production to the workers. Self determination 

and individual control excludes the division of staged production or the separation of each 

process of production. Free development of production is only compatible with a system 

that moves within the boundaries of “natural origin.” 

Even in Marx’s vision of worker controlled production, he acknowledges that this system 

brings the means of its own destruction to light. These destructive means are describes as 

“forces and passions” that are compelled to be fettered by society. Marx argues that these 


selfish needs must be annihilated or the scattered worker controlled means of production and 

property will be transformed and reduced to being socially concentrated. The property of the 

many will be centralized into the large properties of the few. Private property is the crux of 

the capitalistic mode of exploitive production. Once separate and independent worker controlled 

properties are fuzzed together by the capitalists, the independent working individual 

is supplanted and exploited. The individual worker in this supplanted and alienated state no 

longer controls his/her production, rather the worker’s labour is no turned into capital for 

the benefit of the capitalist. Marx argues what is “now to be expropriated is not the selfemployed 

worker, but the capitalist who exploits a large number of workers” (Marx 928). 

This expropriation is conducted and allowed through the laws of capitalist production. The 

centralization of capitals can always perpetuate and protect itself from the others. Through 

the expropriation of many capitals by a few individuals, the process of labor creates the ability 

to utilize technology to exploit all possible means of production through economizing 

and centralizing. Marx argues this eventually gives rise to a global market of labor through 

the growth of an “international character of the capitalist regime” (Marx 929). 

There are many horrors that result in the rise of the “capitalist regime.” Marx states as 

there is a decrease in those who usurp and monopolize the benefits of the capitalistic transformation, 

“the mass of misery, oppression, slavery, degradation, and exploitation grows” 

(Marx 929). However there is hope to this horrific situation. As misery increases there is 

also growth in the working class revolt. The numbers of the working class increases corresponding 

to the increasing number of those who are exploited. These exploited workers 

are ironically organized through the capitalist process of production. Marx argues there will 

be a time when the centralization of the means of production becomes mutually exclusive 

and is in tension with the socialization of labor. Thus, the working class revolts to recapture 

their alienated being of production, the individual labor that is their own and not capital for 

the capitalist. One can see here that in an ironic and natural way, the capitalistic system 

produces the conditions and seeds of its own destruction. Marx refers to the downfall of the 

capitalists as the “negation of the negation” because the initial position was to the original 

state of individual control of the means of production while the first negation refers to the 

capitalistic centralized means of production. 

Marx does acknowledge the transformation of individual private property into capitalist 

private property is more violent and difficult than the transformation of capitalist private 

property into social property. In closing, Marx suggests in the case of individual property 

transforming into capitalist property, it was a matter of the expropriation of the masses by 

the few. Juxtaposed to this first transformation or negation, the transformation of capitalist 

property to social property is the expropriation of a few by the masses of the people. 

Marx was limited in his ability to accurately account for the rapid development of technology 

because of his historical context. There has be a dramatic proliferation in war and 

conflict technology that is utilized for the production of weaponry, both preemptive and defensive. 

It is common for these means of destruction and murder to be stockpiled and stored 

for times of crises. Although Marx is correct in his forecast of a workers’ revolt to exploitation, 

it does not seem likely that the second transformation of capitalist property into social 

property will be less violent. Even if we concede that leading to the transformation, workers


will protest and halt labor in manufacturing weaponry and means of destruction, there are 

still such weapons and means that exist prior to the revolt and transformation. It seems reasonable 

that capitalists and government that are invested in the capitalistic system will use 

violent and destructive means to put down the workers’ revolt as a way of stopping the transformation 

that seeks to take their property and turn it into social property. It is reasonable 

to think capitalists and government will see the goal of social property though the working 

class revolt as a homeowner views a burglar that comes into his/her house to steal personal 

valuables. If the homeowner has means of protection such as a gun, in such circumstances 

as a robbery the homeowner will react violently, likely shooting the robber. This analogy 

of violent protection does not refute or disprove Marx’s analysis of capital accumulation or 

private property transformations. It does illustrate that laws such as “protecting personal 

property in light of danger” is justified with violence under the clause of self defense. Such 

laws, as Marx points out justify capitalistic modes of production. As stated above law is 

created and seeks to protect capitalism, even on the minutest level as seen in the robbery 

example. 

Also the argument of wide systemic violent protection against the social property transformation 

does not disprove Marx’s focus of capitalism producing its own destruction. Proliferation 

of defense is only a method of deterring or preparing for such a revolt. Either 

motive would presuppose the validity of Marx’s analysis from the opposing, capitalist viewpoint. 

Whether the workers’ revolt is more violent or destructive than the capitalist transformation 

is really a secondary concern for Marx and his theory. The main issue in this 

chapter is the historical evolution of property control. Specifically, the transition from private 

consolidated capitalist property to social property is a direct byproduct of the capitalists’ 

oppression of the working class. The working class will only take so much abuse before they 

seek to reclaim their integrity and control of their own labor. This analysis is the most important 

and the focus of the chapter. If this is true then conflict and revolt, no matter how 

destructive and violent is inevitable. 

Hans: The negation of the negation in not the only example of a structure inexorably generating its own demise. 

Already the first negation, i.e., the transition from petty production, in which the worker privately owned his means 

of production, to capitalism, is such an example. 

Message [1570] referenced by [1803], [1863], and [2007fa:647]. Next Message by Gza is [1574]. 

[1803] Thelonius: Your paper [1570] is very well written and engaging to read. I have 

no doubt you will score superlatively on it. The concept that you assess of whether capitalist 

trends will result in the self-destruction of the economic system has a great deal of 

validity. It is easy to see similarities between economic frameworks, such as Capitalism vs. 

Communism. Capitalism heralds itself as being the harbinger of private wealth distribution 

throughout class strata. Capitalism today is described as being “free-market” economics, 

versus the centralized economic frameworks as were found under the Iron Curtain. This is 

the battle of ideas, which took place between western market economics and Leninist central 

planning economics. Market philosophy as Marx describes it states that dynamic equilibrium 

will be reached with some goods on the market, the advent of a commodity’s “natural 

price”. The natural price of a commodity is consumer driven, that is, the collective proletariat 

has power over the amnount of profit and regenerative capital a capitalist producer is 

given access to by measure of what market products workers buy, and how much they are 

willing to pay for them. 


It is a contradiction in terms of workers wanting to affect producers, but it is still power. 

For example, if we all hate Wal-Mart Corp... We need only realize that Wal-Mart Corp is 

powerful only by virtue of its profits. Mass boycots of this capitalist mogul would cause its 

stock to plummet, and would concomitantly put Wal-Mart dependent wage workers out of 

work. There are external dilemmas, but the power of the Corp. is not absolute, but related to 

consumers’ willingness to cathect into the corp. 

One outside factor that would snag Marx’s theory of capitalism’s self-inflicted downfall 

is the automation of production. Automative technology allows capitalists to circumnavigate 

the complex and costly demands of human capital. Automated commodity production 

eliminates socially neccesary labor time, and social labor values inherent to the commodity. 

The irony behind corporations such as Wal-Mart is that large corporations represent a 

centralized planning schema, just as communist nations had planned their economies. It was 

this centralization and lack of diversity that affected those economies so negatively. It is 

easy to see how Marx’s theory is not only probable, but painfully unfolding before our eyes. 

Hans: Workers are in the majority and there is strength in numbers. They should use this strength to achieve 

control over production itself, not just the market. If they try to influence the market, they play by the rules of their 

class enemy which are stacked against them. 


[1863] Parmenio: graded A Gza [1570] makes a good summary of Marx’s general line 

of reasoning in chapter 32, however I found a few things that I wanted a comment upon and 

didn’t get. 

“As misery increases there is also growth in the working class revolt” is what Gza says 

of Marx’s argument, and I agree that is the point Marx is trying to make when he says 

“From that moment, new forces and new passions spring up in the bosom of society, forces 

and passions which feel themselves to be fettered by that society”. (pg 928) Basically he 

is saying that society won’t stand for their conditions eternally, they will get to a point of 

action. 

The thing that is missing however is the increase in human suffering and misery that 

capitalism should have produced. Now this isn’t to say that all the workers in capitalist 

countries aren’t exploited, or that some aren’t in horrible conditions, that would be difficult to 

argue. What isn’t difficult to argue is that the capitalist worker of today is better off than one 

that lived 100 years ago. The worker a 100 years ago didn’t have workers compensation, paid 

vacation, sick leave or general working conditions today that few (I only say few, because I 

am sure someone has tried to make the case, but I have yet to see it made) would argue are 

worse than at the turn of the century. 

I think what is missing is an analysis of the workers in historical terms, the workers did 

start to get worse and worse but they also decided to do what Marx said they would, and 

revolt. However they didn’t go as far as Marx predicted they would. Instead of looking to 

take over the entire means of production, they unionized and decided to take more of what 

they produced as compensation; they increased their labor power. 

They didn’t get all of what they produced but they got more than they had, and decreased 

their suffering to such a degree that they forestalled any true “annihilation”. One can see this 

as the capitalists deciding to give some of their capital to the workers in order to placate the


workers to an extent that they don’t revolt, therefore permanently stalemating a revolution. 

If this is the case, as it appears to me, then how will the revolution come? (I can’t answer 

this because I don’t think one will ever come.) 

Another thing that I wonder about is if capitalism is the form of revolution that is going to 

foster a revolt, one would expect capitalism to be the most difficult, dangerous, and otherwise 

exploitive system there is. But it would be difficult to argue that workers conditions are 

worse in a capitalist nation like the USA, than a non-capitalist nation like China (I say noncapitalist 

because China is today a bit of a hybrid between socialist and capitalist, although 

I have yet to hear anyone say they would be more capitalist than socialist). 

The capitalists resisted this push by the workers with violence, as Gza said they would in 

the latter part of his essay, but they decided to give the workers more of what they created 

eventually. We did see some violence, but it wasn’t the end of capitalism. The capitalists 

decided to give in, usually, and pay more than they had, even if the workers still didn’t get 

all of what they produced they did get more than they had. 

One last thing that I am curious about is that in the beginning of this class we were told 

by Hans that this “Capital is not a blueprint for a better society, but it is an analysis of 

capitalism.” ([111] it was said that any further mention of this would be docked, but I have 

an honest question about this.) The beginning of the class I would agree with that statement, 

but in this chapter we are seeing a “blueprint for a better society”. Marx specifically uses his 

critique of capitalism to come to a better form, just as the simple form evolved, so he sees 

capitalism evolving into something better. 

This new “better society” is explicit on page 929 of Capital when Marx says “This is 

the negation of the negation. It does not re-establish private property, but it does indeed 

establish individual property on the basis of the achievements of the capitalist era: namely 

co-operation and the possession in common of the land and the means of production produced 

by the labour itself”. 

So I would say that initially the point was valid, Marx has kept himself to critiquing 

capitalism as opposed to giving a blueprint for a better society, at the end of the book however 

he does give a blueprint. He believes that as exploitation increases the workers will demand 

more (proven if not to his extent), and then the workers will set up a better society as the 

quote above indicates. 


[1868] Picard: graded A– I thought GZA’s paper was well done because he/she provided 

some interesting modern views about what Marx thought would happen during a “revolution” 

by the workers overthrowing the capitalists. I would be interested to read how or if 

Marx’s views had changed on the subject in his later years (although he died only 16 years 

after having written this text). I think that it is human nature to rebel against an oppressor 

and in many cases capitalism plays that role. I tend to agree with Marx’s belief that in order 

to have a more “perfect” system selfish desires must be put aside, but in my opinion this 

is something that will never be achieved. I wonder how Marx would react at seeing how 

the world and capitalism has evolved since his death. In our modern times would he see 

capitalism, private property, exploitation, etc. in the same way? There don’t seem to have 


been many revolts against capitalists, and the few that took place have not achived what they 

hoped (at least that I know of). So overall good paper. Good illustrations of Marx’s limited 

views on technological advancements and good explanations of the struggle between 

workers and capitalists. 

Hans: During most of the 20th century, up to one-third of the earth’s population lived in Marxist-inspired noncapitalist 

economic systems. Even today the fear of a socialist alternative keeps the ruling class awake at night, this 

is why they are so aggressive against Cuba and now also Venezuela. 

Message [1868] referenced by [1873] and [2007SP:1332]. Next Message by Picard is [1924]. 




Term Paper 833 Essay about Chapter Thirty-Three: Modern Theory of Colonization 

[1598] Mullin: It is said of Wakefield that, “he discovered that capital is not a thing, but a 

social relation between persons, established by the instrumentality of things.” Capital cannot 

then exist without a strong social tie between producer and laborer thus resulting in capital. 

Marx continues with the following remark: “We know that the means of production and 

subsistence, while they remain the property of the immediate producer, are not capital. They 

become capital only under circumstances in which they serve at the same time as means of 

exploitation and subjection of the laborer.” Concluded then is that capital cannot exist when 

exploitation of a laborer is absent from the equation. 

There must then be a market of laborers sufficient enough to fill the demand or the capitalists 

cannot prevail. When in the American settlements it became the desire of each laborer 

to be a land owner and to accumulate wealth by his own power it was in fact undermining 

the capitalistic view as the accustomed mode of production and thus accumulation could not 

exist when the laborer was also the possessor of his means of production. This cycle results 

in a small and uncertain supply of wage-labor frustrating the capitalistic view (Wakefield). 

As the cycle unfolds its impact becomes greater as “they soon ‘cease. . . to be laborers for 

hire; they. . . become independent landowners, if not competitors with their former master 

in the labor-market.’” The effects of this transition are greatly felt and eliminate the natural 

dependence that exists between capitalists and laborers. This is further detailed by Merivale: 

“The urgent desire for cheaper and more subservient laborers – for a class 

to whom the capitalist might dictate terms, instead of being dictated to by 

them. . . In ancient civilized countries the laborer, though free, is by a law of 

Nature dependent on capitalists in colonies this dependence must be created 

by artificial means.” 

To reach the desired outcome for the thriving of capitalism the optimal social relation 

must be present. The artificial means discussed previously outlines that this relation no 

longer naturally existed but must be artificially derived. The suggested manner was the 

expropriation of the laborer, or their private property. Expropriation by definition is the 

deprivation of ones possessions. Said deprivation would thus result in an increased dependence 

between laborer and capitalists that is necessary for the capitalists to hold sufficient 

power for exploitation. Unless a renewed stance in self-earned private property existed the


social power held by the capitalist would continue to diminish and relinquish the incredible 

influence held upon the wage-laborer. The colonization illustrated how embedded this 

natural dependence was in not only the social relation necessary for the exploitation of the 

laborer but how ultimately the desired success of the capitalist is limited to the amount of 

dependence felt by the wage-laborer. 

Hans: Wakefield was thinking of a very special method of expropriating the laborer in the colonies. Your term 

paper ended before you got to Wakefield’s theory of colonization. 

Message [1598] referenced by [1654] and [2007SP:1321]. Next Message by Mullin is [1933]. 

[1624] Diggity, BBQ, and Manchu: Marx starts off in Chapter 33 with the distinction of 

two kinds of private property: the labour of the producer himself, and the exploitation of the 

labour of others. We have learned thus far the different components of production, pricing, 

values/use-values of different commodities, and the motives for such actions. Having already 

established the aspect of the need for social involvement in all of these processes, we get a 

taste of E.G. Wakefield calls “systematic colonization.” 

We call it the American Dream, to be able to own our own land and not have to depend 

on others for our subsistence. For one to own their own land, and on that land, produce the 

food necessary for them to live, as well as weaving their own clothes, does not categorize 

them as a ‘capitalist’. Says Marx: “We know that the means of production and subsistence, 

while they remain the property of the immediate producer, are not capital. They only become 

capital under circumstances in which they serve at the same time as means of exploitation 

of, and domination over, the worker.” (pg 933 Capital) 

There is an innate desire to be able to obtain more possessions than our neighbor or 

the capitalists. This is only accomplished by the labour power of that individual and their 

household, but we see that this is impossible. They need “additional labourers” (or additional 

slaves) to be able to have the means to produce in order to accumulate more capital. In order 

to accomplish any of this, Marx says there needs to be an exploitation of the workers and 

the help of the “mother country” to be able to provide the labour necessary to accomplish 

these goals. Thus we see that in the end, there will be only two types of owners, the owners 

of capital, and the owners of labour. 

In true or free colonies there is a dramatic contradiction between the capitalists who 

want to hire workers to valorize their capital and people who, because of the availability of 

land, become independent producers. Along came Wakefield who looked at the situation 

in the true colonies and notices that the labor markets are constantly “understocked.” And 

those capitalists are unable to valorize their capital. Wakefield sees a need to remove the 

possibility of being independent from the people. His solution is to put an artificial price on 

the land, forcing immigrants to work for the capitalists; with this price paid for the land they 

can import more workers. 

Marx is positive towards Wakefield’s analysis for several reasons. Wakefield is admitting 

to the need to separate people from the land in order for capitalism to develop. He also admits 

that the people are better off as free producers. In the absence of expropriation workers are 

given the power to demand higher wages. This ends the illusion of free contracts between 

equals in the labor market. 


When approaches like Wakefield’s were tried by England in Australia they were undermined 

as the flow of immigrants diverted itself to the US. Eventually the squandering of land 

on aristocrats and capitalists, together with the influx of gold seekers, and the destruction of 

artisans by cheap British imports succeeded in producing labor surplus. 

Marx concludes that the secret of primitive accumulation is: “that the capitalist mode of 

production and accumulation, and therefore capitalist private property as well, have for their 

fundamental condition the annihilation of that private property which rests on the labour of 

the individual himself; in other words, the expropriation of the worker.” (p. 940 Capital) 


[1654] Pisciphiliac: graded A Ch. 33 - The Modern Theory of Colonization - Term 

Paper Discussion. I am glad that Mullin decided to write on this particular chapter in 

[1598], because I felt that it was interesting. Mullin did an excellent job of defining the real 

meat of the chapter which is as follows: 

It is said of Wakefield that, “he discovered that capital is not a thing, but 

a social relation between persons, established by the instrumentality of 

things.” Capital cannot then exist without a strong social tie between producer 

and laborer thus resulting in capital. Marx continues with the following 

remark: “We know that the means of production and subsistence, while 

they remain the property of the immediate producer, are not capital. They 

become capital only under circumstances in which they serve at the same 

time as means of exploitation and subjection of the laborer.” Concluded 

then is that capital cannot exist when exploitation of a laborer is absent 

from the equation. - Mullin [1598] 

Beyond the important aspect of the chapter, I found a couple of other parts thoughtprovoking. 

First, on page 936, Marx is discussing the writings of Wakefield on the topic of 

capitalist bringing laborers from Europe to America. Wakefield is noting that laborers would 

quickly acquire land and become capitalists themselves. The text reads as this: 

“They soon ”cease... to be laborers for hire; they... become independent landowners, 

if not competitors with their former masters in the labor-market.“ Horror of horrors! The 

excellent capitalist has imported bodily from Europe, with his own good money, his own 

competitors! The end of the world has come!” 

Second, on page 937, it reads: “there is in the colonies the urgent desire for cheaper and 

more subservient laborers - for a class to whom the capitalist might dictate terms, instead of 

being dictated to by them...” As I was reading this text, I couldn’t help but think of slavery. 

Was the movement towards slavery a result of the economic conditions being discussed in 

this chapter? The chapter never discusses slavery directly. 

There are a couple of other topics that I would have liked to have seen Mullin elaborate 

on is this chapter. I felt that that proposal of the government to artificially set the price of 

land high to delay the laborer from obtaining the means of production was interesting and 

important.


Also, I found the discussion of how a “rapid centralization of capitalization” happened in 

America to be intriguing. Page 940 details how: 

“On the one hand, the enormous and ceaseless stream of men, year after 

year driven upon America, leaves behind a stationary sediment in the east of 

the United States, the wave of immigration from Europe throwing men on 

the labor-market there more rapidly than the wave of emigration westwards 

can wash them away. On the other hand, the American Civil War brought 

in its train a colossal national debt, and, with it, pressure of taxes, the rise of 

the vilest financial aristocracy, the squandering of a huge part of the public 

land on speculative companies for the exploitation of railways, mines, etc., 

in brief, the most rapid centralization of capital. The great republic has, 

therefore, ceased to be the promised land for emigrant laborers.” 


[1755] Camhol and Synergy: The Modern Theory of Colonization is in fact a “systematic 

colonization” as described by E.G.Wakefield, who Marx uses as his resource. Systematic 

colonization aims at manufacturing wage-labourers, who are the life-blood of capitalists. It 

is because of the relations between governments and capitalists that systematic colonization 

is created. It allows political economists to assist the capitalists of the mother country in 

creating more capital. 

Marx did not agree with Wakefield where Wakefield calls everything capital even when 

exploitation is not present. Marx states that it is by the exploitation of other’s labor that 

capital is established. If labor is used for self-production it is not capital. Marx describes 

how since the time of Adam owning capital has always been honorable and believed to be 

the goal of existence. Because people had split themselves into two groups of Owners of 

Capital and Owners of Labor, the owners of labor learned to exploit the labor of others in 

order to create capital for themselves. 

The idea of “systematic colonization” is that in a society where that exploitation is difficult 

to come by, a capitalist will try to force society and its laws to create restrictions to 

self-producers in order to kill off the self-producers; making them dependant on the capitalists. 

This is how England was working at Marx’s time of writing this book. As he looked 

at America, he saw that is was an interesting specimen where “the secret discovered in the 

New World by the political economy of the Old World, and loudly proclaimed by it: that 

the capitalist mode of production and accumulation, and therefore capitalist private property 

as well, have for their fundamental condition the annihilation of that private property which 

rests on the labour of the individual himself; in other words, the expropriation of the worker” 

(Marx). Since “capital is a social relation of production” (Marx), America should have been 

a breeding ground of capitalists. This was not happening at first though because of the huge 

amount of self-producers in the Americas, where “only a tenth of the people are in the class 

of working laborers”(Marx). 

Because of this inequality of wage-laborers to self-producers, Marx sees the only answer 

for the capitalists is to institute systematic colonization. Here the capitalists will ask the 

government to help keep the wage-laborers dependent on the capitalists. This can be done 

by making artificially high land prices, so the already existing wage-laborers can not buy out 


of their bondage. This then causes the capitalists to increase their own capital and buy more 

of this “higher” priced land, perpetuating the cycle. This then makes more dependence on 

the capitalists and as the demand for this “higher” priced land increases, so can price. These 

increased prices make it harder and harder for an individual to get out of the capitalist’s 

cycle. This is the whole systematic colonization theme. 

Hans: Marx was critical of Wakefield’s “systematic colonization” since one cannot legislate relations of production. 

But Wakefield’s failed recipe for the colonies tells us something about the inner character of capitalism. 

Message [1755] referenced by [1832]. Next Message by Camhol is [1786]. 

[1827] SueGirl: graded A Admittedly, reading Chapter 33 of Marx’s Capital was an arduous 

task. However, the term paper [1624] written by Diggity, BBQ and Manchu helped to 

clear up many difficult concepts. Their paper was a successful attempt to illustrate Marx and 

Wakefield’s opinions on labour, land and primitive accumulation in a simple, reader-friendly 

manner. 

In addition to their comments, I would like to add more about Edward Wakefield. Through 

research, I have found that Wakefield was a kidnapper, ex-con and an English political economist 

(what a combination). I don’t believe that Marx looked at Wakefield or his writings in 

a “positive” light necessarily (as written in this term paper), but I think Wakefield’s honesty 

in his analysis was an opportunity for Marx to reveal the strategies of the capitalists to the 

working class. 

Marx discusses Wakefield’s view of the need to deprive people of the possibility of being 

independent. Wakefield’s solution to this was to put an artificial price on the land and force 

the immigrants to work for the capitalists (which in turn would eventually pay to import 

more workers in what Wakefield considered an understocked labor market). 

Wakefield suggests that the government do the following in order to correct the understocked 

labor market and the turnover in jobs: 1.) control all land in the new settlements; 

2.) artificially set high prices for their sale; and 3.) break the land to be sold into smaller 

less usable plots. Having accomplished this, the workers would again be forced to labor for 

the capitalist, and then by necessity save extra long to purchase their own soil at an inflated 

price (Yenom, [2004fa:532]). 

In the term paper, the writers indicated that “There is an innate desire to be able to obtain 

more possessions than our neighbor or the capitalists.” I don’t believe Marx or Wakefield 

believed this innate desire existed. Instead, Wakefield said that if everyone in a society had 

equal portions of capital, “no man would have a motive for accumulating more capital than 

he could use with his own hands.” 

Other than the above additions and slight corrections, I was really impressed by the term 

paper [1624] and consider it an excellent summary of Marx’s chapter. 

Final Grading Note by Hans: I want to take this opportunity to thank you for all your contributions which really 

enriched this class. 

Message [1827] referenced by [2007SP:1193]. Next Message by SueGirl is [1919]. 

[1829] Danske: All three papers did a good job of looking at the main point behind Chapter 

33. Wakefield’s look at the system for exploitation of the laborer reveals some items that 

most capitalists prefer to remain hidden. Creating a system that will provide a ready supply 

of workers was proving to be difficult. Wakefield proposes that certain “requirements” be


created that allowed capitalists the ability to control accumulation and independence of the 

worker. This could only be done efficiently by bringing in government or at least officials 

who would assist in marginallizing worker opportunities. Finding a ready supply of new 

workers was proving to be difficult. As each paper points out using the idea of “opportunity” 

to own your own land ended up working to the advantage of the capitalist in resolving 

their labor supply issue. These methods of having the laborer tied to debt and need effectively 

removed their ability to anything but subservience to the capitalist. The social ties also 

proves very compelling as Pisciphiliac [1654] points out. 


[1832] Prairierose: Camhol and Synergy’s explanation of chapter 33 in [1755] provides 

a wonderful summary of the concepts Marx presents in chapter 33. However, their paper 

could benefit from a deeper explanation of Wakefield’s theory. Marx elucidates what Wakefield 

discovered. The first significant discovery is property in means of money, means of 

subsistence, machines and other means of production does not make a person a capitalist. 

The wage laborer needs to be willing to sell himself on his own free will. The second discovery 

was capital is a social relation between persons which is mediated through things. 

Camhol and Synergy touch on Wakefield ideas throughout the paper and when discussing 

America. However, they never explicitly explain Wakefield’s theory. I feel adding more 

analysis of Wakefield’s theory would enrich the paper. In conclusion, Camhol and Synergy 

offer a great summary of the topics included in chapter 33; but, the paper would benefit from 

explaining Wakefield’s ideas. 


Question 838 Marx’s Critique of the Gotha Programme 

[1593] Thelonius, Nazgul, and Overlord: According to Karl Korsch, Marx’s letter titled 

Critique of the Gotha Programme of 1875 (originally titled, Randglossen zum Programm 

der deutschen Arbeiterpartei), is amongst his most complete and forceful expressions of 

his social and economic theory. The Critique of the Gotha Programme is characterized as 

being equally pertinent to a study of Marxist theory as is his Communist Manifesto of 1847- 

1848, and the ‘General Introduction’ to the Critique of Political Economy of 1857. The 

critique was written not for formal publication as were his other works, but was written in 

the margins of a rough draft copy of the programme and mailed to a group of his German 

friends. For this reason, the critique is not tacitly comprehensible, but represents a deeply 

significant expression of Marx’s theories. 

The details outlining the historical background that led up to the Congress held at Gotha 

in 1875 comprise a significant sample of German political history. The Congress at Gotha in 

1875 is significant today in that it was the birthplace of Germany’s modern Socialist Democratic 

Party (SPD) resulting from the union of two forceful socialist organizations. The two 

organizations who met at Gotha in May of 1875 held contrasting opinions of how socialism 

was to be brought about. The older socialist party, the ADAV (Allgemeiner Deutscher Arbeierverein) 

were considered to be staunch revolutionary socialists. Their counterpart, the 

SDAP (Sozialdemokratische Arbeiterpartei) regarded themselves as a component of Karl 

Marx’s I.W.A. (International Workingman’s Association) and believed in a less violent transition 

from capitalism into social democracy. 


The ideologies of the SDAP and the IWA are regarded as being evolutionary socialist. The 

two parties were divided in their methods and means of achieving the political goals of social 

democracy. The story of Marx’s Critique of the Gotha Programme begins appropriately 

with a man named Ferdinand Lassalle, who is credited with founding Germany’s very first 

labor party, the ADAV (Allgemeiner Deutscher Arbeiterverein, German Workers Association). 

Karl Marx and his fellow advocates of evolutionary socialism denounced Lassalle as 

being an opportunist with insincere motivations in the Socialist movement. The ADAV was 

founded in May of 1863 with Ferdinand Lassalle as acting president from the organization’s 

inception until August of 1864. Lassalle had hoped that the organization would flourish, 

but by 1864 membership in the organization had grown to only 4,600 members. LaSalle’s 

leadership in the ADAV would have likely continued along with his political career, but a 

conflict with Count von Racowitza over his would-be bride, Hélène von Dönniges, led to 

a duel at LaSalle’s request at Carouge, a suburb of Geneva. The duel which took place on 

August 28, 1864, left Ferdinand Lassalle mortally wounded until he died 3 days later. 

Opinion was divided within the ADAV between strict socialism and democracy. Wilhelm 

Liebknecht, a friend of Karl Marx, was a member of the ADAV until 1865. But as the ADAV 

tried to co-operate with Bismarck’s government amongst other actions made, Liebknecht 

became discouraged with the organization and disavowed his membership to the movement. 

In early August of 1869, Liebknecht created the SDAP (Sozialdemokratische Arbeiterpartei 

Deutschlands, Social Democratic Workers’ Party of Germany), along with his and Marx’s 

associate August Bebel, among others. The SDAP was founded in Eisenach, Germany and 

was otherwise referred to as the Eisenachers. Despite the ideological disparity which existed 

between the two parties, the magnitude of their political influences was negligible given their 

lesser memberships as two distinct parties. In order to garner stronger influence, both parties 

concluded that unification would be favorable to the goals of socialism. A new unifying 

charter was authored and intended as a compromise to the ideological Lassallean Programm 

of the ADAV, and the Eisenacher Programme of the SDAP. This unifying charter was called 

the Gotha Programme. Marx was sent a draft of the programme, and returned the draft 

to his friends having written harsh critiques in the margins outlining the many fallacies, 

contradictions and erroneous Lassallean ideologies. This returned copy of the drafted Gotha 

Programme, has come to be known as Marx’s famous Critique of the Gotha Programme. 

“Labour is the source of all wealth and all culture, and since useful labour is possible only 

in society and through society, the proceeds of labour belong undiminished with equal right 

to all members of society.” This opening statement of the Gotha Programme sets the tone for 

what Engels refers to as a “flatly and flaccidly written programme”. There is vagueness to 

the programme as a whole, which accounts for Marx’s harsh critique of it. On glancing upon 

it one could say that it sounds viable perhaps even admirable, however, upon dissection of it 

the structural weakness is revealed. 

The weakness is most apparent in the final section of the Gotha Programme, The German 

workers party demands as the intellectual and ethical basis of the state. For the purpose of 

this paper this shall be the starting point for the dissection of the critique, after which the 

opening statement of the Gotha Programme shall be revisited.


Six demands are stated on behalf of the German workers party, the first being “Universal 

and equal elementary education by the state. Universal compulsory school attendance. Free 

instruction.” Marx is very methodical in his breakdown of a statement taking it piece by 

piece. To start with he asks the question what do these words (equal elementary education) 

suggest? The meaning itself can vary and by doing so can denature the intention of the 

demand. 

A large part of the reason Marx is so specific in his definitions and breaking down every 

idea to its simplest component is so that there is no misunderstanding or artistic interpretation 

of his teachings. This is essential in the presentation of any composition. 

The second demand is “Normal working day.” In leaving the demand as stated with no 

determinant value assigned to what constitutes “normal” the workers leave themselves open 

to exploitation. Chapter 10 of Capital is devoted solely to determining the parameters of a 

working day any one who has studied Capital should be familiar with the statement, “The 

working-day is therefore capable of being determinable, but in and for itself indeterminate. 

(pg 341)” The programme would do well to specify what a normal working day is. 

“Restriction of female labour and prohibition of child labour” is the third demand. Hopefully 

by now you begin to see the vagueness in these demands, for example the restriction of 

female labour. Does this mean we restrict the number of hours females are allowed to work? 

Are restrictions placed upon the types of jobs they are allowed to work? Marx questions 

if this means “the exclusion of female labour from branches of industry that are especially 

unhealthy for the female body or are objectionable morally for the female sex?” 

The prohibition of child labour is another abstraction. Here it is necessary to state at 

what age one is no longer a child, or under what circumstances constitute labor for children. 

The continual elusive nature in which the Gotha Programme is worded is one of the major 

drawbacks to it. 

The remaining three demands are as follows: “State supervision of factory, workshop and 

domestic industry”, “Regulation of prison labour”, and finally “An effective liability law”. 

At one point during Marx’s critique he states, “If that was what was meant, it should have 

been said.” In reading the critique you can feel Marx’s overwhelming frustration with it, 

this is due in large part to the fact that although he did not write the Gotha Programme, his 

position in Germany is such that he will be associated with it. 

In a letter written by Engels to August Bebel, just two months prior to Marx’s critique he 

said, “You must remember that abroad we are made responsible for any and every utterance 

and action of the German Social-Democratic Workers’ Party. . . People like to imagine that 

we run the whole business from here. . . a new programme is after all a banner publicly 

raised, and the outside world judges the party by it. . . what impression will be produced 

by this bending of the knee to Lassalleanism on the part of the whole German socialist 

proletariat. . . our Party will have lost its political virginity. . . ” This guilty by association 

implication is a large part why Marx was so harsh in his critique, aside from the fact that the 

programme itself is flawed. 

“Labour is the source of all wealth and all culture.” Returning to the opening statement of 

the Gotha Programme a blatant contradiction is made; labour is not the source of all wealth. 


On page 55 of the annotations to Capital, exam question 107 asked this very question. Nature 

is a huge source of use values, and therefore a source of wealth. Right from the outset 

Marx’s teachings have been thrown out the window so to speak. One of the basic tenets 

of Capital is ignored, a pattern that would follow throughout the document. It is easy to 

imagine Marx’s furrowed brow and constant mutterings throughout his reading of the Gotha 

Programme. 

The third part of the opening sentence quite possibly caused Marx to throw his hands up 

in the air, “the proceeds of labour belong undiminished with equal right to all members of 

society.” This sentence begs several questions, namely what are the proceeds of labor? What 

is considered a fair distribution? Do all members of society include those who do not work? 

A large emphasis of the programme was that every laborer should receive an “undiminished 

part of their labor”, however the terms by which this is done or what part of their labor is 

“undiminished” is never clearly outlined. 

Provided with the foundation of Marx’s Capital, the numerous contradictions and imprecisions 

that are present throughout the Gotha Programme are palpable. Upon completion of 

his critique Marx wrote one last sentence, “Dixi et salvavi animam mean (I have spoken and 

saved my soul).” 

According to Karl Korsch, “The Critique of the Gotha Programme of 1875 is, of all Karl 

Marx’s shorter works, the most complete, lucid and forceful expression of the bases and consequences 

of his economic and social theory.” One major problem with the critique was not 

the content or the arguments themselves, but no one could understand what Marx was trying 

to convey. Korsch writes “It is not among the master’s most easily comprehensible works. 

One obvious reason for this is that it is not written as a unified presentation, but is made up 

of loosely assembled ‘marginal notes’ on individual paragraphs of a draft programme that 

itself was not structured in a rigorously logical way.” If his thoughts were structured and 

logically presented the assumption could be made that his critique would have had much 

more success earlier on in the process. A second problem with Marx’s critique is the fact 

that it was not written for the general public. It was written in such a fashion that those 

who read it must have historical knowledge and an understanding of Marxism in general. 

In a society in which the majority believes, “Ignorance is bliss” we see the problems with 

this. It is possible that the majority, including their leaders, in Marx’s society had the same 

approach when reading his critique, “Ignorance is bliss”. 

Korsch makes a point to bring this possibility to the surface, “Otherwise what may happen 

is what occurred to those to whom Marx originally sent his letter in 1875. They totally failed 

to understand the theoretical and practical importance of Marx’s critique.” This complete 

lack of understanding gave those that received the critique the green light to do nothing. 

If Marx had taken the fact that they had no understanding of Marxism and the historical 

knowledge, he could have created his critique in such a way that would have had much more 

impact. The end result is stated here by Korsch, “As a result, the definitive version of the 

Programme adopted by the Gotha Party Congress in the same month, May 1875, varied so 

little from the draft which Marx criticized that not one of his criticisms ceased to apply to 

it.” He goes on to say “The recipients of the letter did not even understand the minor points 

he made. This is shown, for example, by the fact that they even failed to cross out ‘the


regulation of prison labour’, although Marx criticized it at the end of his text as a ‘petty 

demand in a general worker’s programme’. They did not even improve it in the way Marx 

suggested.” Marx’s reply to this, “The least one might have expected from socialists” 

One possible reason for the disorganization of the Critique was the fact that Marx was 

not as healthy as he would have liked to be. In his letter to Bracke in 1875 he makes this 

obvious. “I am extremely busy and have to far exceed the amount of work the doctors allow 

me. Hence it was in no way a ‘pleasure’ to write such a lengthy screed.” It is possible that he 

had pushed aside the possibility that his critique would have been received with blind eyes. 

In any case the final draft of the Programme that was adopted by Gotha should have 

been accepted with great opposition. Instead it was taken quite seriously. As Engels writes, 

“Instead of this, the donkeys of the bourgeois papers took this programme quite seriously 

and read into it what it does not contain. They interpreted it in a communist way, and the 

workers appear to be doing the same. It is this circumstance alone that made it possible for 

Marx and myself not to dissociate ourselves publicly from such a programme. As long as 

our opponents, and likewise the workers, view the programme as embodying our intentions 

we may allow ourselves to keep quiet about it.” 

Hans: This is an excellent paper. 

Regarding the educational demands, Marx was much more specific than just saying one has to define things 

better. Regarding the demand “equal education for the people” (“Volkserziehung” means education for the people, 

not “elementary” education), Marx remarked that the program must contain demands for today’s class society, not 

a future goal. The only feasible way to get equal education today would be to bar the higher classes from attending 

anything other than elementary school. Clearly, this is not what is meant. Which leaves the question: what do they 

mean with this point? Marx’s preference would have been to demand that technical schools would be attached to 

the free and compulsory elementary schools. 

A general question in the background, which every political organization has to grapple with: what kinds of 

demands should one raise in a society in which those things which one really wants are not feasible? 


0 is 0 in 2007SP, 888 in 2007fa, 888 in 2008SP, 888 in 2008fa, 888 in 2009fa, 888 in 


0 Free Discussion 

[74] Keltose: I don’t think I will ever understand this. 


[76] Thugtorious: Past Experiences with Marx. I was wondering what type of previous 

experiences people in this class have had with studying Marxian economics. What classes 

have people taken, or what other Marxian authors have you read? And, the $10,000 question: 

where do people stand on Marxian thought? I ask this now because I think it might be 

interesting to see if anybody has their viewpoint changed between now and the conclusion 

of this semester. 


[95] Tiny: Past Experiences with Marx. For me, I don’t have much experience with 

Karl Marx. I’d say I’m not much of a Marxian, but I want to learn more (because it will be 

needed to pass the class). :) 



[96] Claire: Past Experiences with Marx. I have not had much experience. I find that 

the idea is interesting but do not believe that it can work. I feel that the human race is too 

selfish to allow everyone to have the same money as the next person. 


[107] Dange: Past Experiences with Marx. I have had a few classes that have given 

introductions to Marx’s theories, but not as in depth as we are getting (obviously). I also am 

interested in learning more about Marx, although I find the theories confusing. I am glad 

that I had a few introductions to his theories otherwise I think I would have been completely 

lost going into this class! 

I wouldn’t say that I am a Marxist, nor would I say I am not a Marxist. I think I still 

have a lot to learn. I guess it is a different way of thinking than we are used to in classical 

economics. This insight to Marx is a good thing then! 


[108] Tesa: microeconomics. Definitions of Microeconomics on the Web: 

The study of the individual parts of the economy, the household and the firm, how prices 

are determined and how prices determine the production, distribution and use of goods and 

services. 

Karl Marx picked up capitalism like an ant farm and made a study of it in extreme depth. I 

was beginning to wonder if he was the inventor of microeconomics but evidently it’s origins 

come from French engineers, at least according to Robert B. Ekelund Jr. and Robert F Hebert 

(scholar and Prof. of economics at Auburn University). Just thought I would share what I 

found though it may or may not be absolutely correct. 


[157] Thugtorious: Class Struggles in Katrina and the Media’s Conveyance of “rescue.”. 

I know we have all read a lot about Katrina, the aftermath, delayed rescue response, 

and the sort. There has also been a lot of discussion about racism, socio-economic prejudice, 

and other types of phobias infiltrating New Orleans in a time when all human beings should 

be uniting. Below is an email that I received detailing an account of two paramedics who 

were in New Orleans for a conference and forced to stay there while Katrina hit. I think it 

is a beautiful, yet tragic letter detailing what average people did for each other while those 

in positions of power repressed them and treated them like lower life forms. I firmly believe 

that in times of crisis, the true person inside of you comes out. For the average person in 

New Orleans, this meant doing whatever it took to survive and to help those around you survive; 

uniting as a common species and working at towards a common end (like what the two 

paramedics did in the letter below). For others, it meant fend for yourselves, we’re leaving, 

and we will sort out the bodies when everything dries up. 

I know that it is long, but it is well worth the read. The first letter is a man who is ashamed 

of what the “average” people did in New Orleans. The second letter is the paramedic responding 

about what really happened. It makes you think that if what happened in New 

Orleans happened all over the world, what does money and “stuff” really mean or matter? 

Nothing. It is the relationships that you have with other people that truly matter. 

At 10:56 AM 09/08/2005, Stewart Phillips wrote:


Shelly, when I met you, you impressed me as an intelligent person. How can you be 

roped into the misconception that racism is in any significant way a factor in this terrible 

disaster? 

I have worked in opportunity programs now for more than 40 years, including work at 

approximately half the historically black colleges and universities in the US, in many other 

impoverished communities (predominately black, predominately Hispanic, and predominately 

Appalachian and poor white communities). There is not a racist bone in my body. 

My relatives in Mississippi who lost everything they owned other than a single change of 

clothing, and an automobile badly damaged though still drivable, are white ... and miserable 

.. but people like them got very little media coverage from national media, 90% of whom 

concentrated their coverage in an area of a few square blocks in New Orleans that was more 

readily accessible and largely populated by poor black citizens. One of the results, unfortunately, 

has been to project a distorted image of the tragedies associated with the hurricane 

- a distorted image that is being given wild political spins by racist politicians who are 

unashamedly trying to make political “hay” out of this unprecedented national disaster. Too, 

this feeds the frenzy of the small racist element in OUR ranks, who are equally unashamed 

and equally willing to twist the truth for their own misguided and unconscionable purposes. 

Sorry if I am opening the door for someone to accuse me coming out on the “wrong” 

side of these issues. But there is NO excuse for anyone in our profession trying to join the 

politicians who want to take advantage of a horrible, horrible disaster to tar their political 

opponents, or to lambast anyone not of their own pet theories. 

I feel very sorry for anyone affected by the hurricane - except the small criminal element 

- and the somewhat larger criminally misguided theorists. 

Stewart Phillips Director, South Kentucky Educational Opportunity Center and Director, 

Kentucky High School Equivalency Program for Migrant and Seasonal Farmworkers 

Response: 

Hi Stewart, 

I have read your email with great interest and thought you might find equally interesting 

a different account of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina (see below). You can draw your 

own conclusions! 

Sept 5, 2005 

Fwd by Phil Gasper: 

Two friends of mine–paramedics attending a conference–were trapped in New Orleans 

by Hurricane Katrina. This is their eyewitness report. PG 

Hurricane Katrina-Our Experiences by Larry Bradshaw, Lorrie Beth Slonsky 

Two days after Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans, the Walgreen’s store at the corner 

of Royal and Iberville streets remained locked. The dairy display case was clearly visible 

through the widows. It was now 48 hours without electricity, running water, plumbing. 

The milk, yogurt, and cheeses were beginning to spoil in the 90-degree heat. The owners 


and managers had locked up the food, water, pampers, and prescriptions and fled the City. 

Outside Walgreen’s windows, residents and tourists grew increasingly thirsty and hungry. 

The much-promised federal, state and local aid never materialized and the windows at 

Walgreen’s gave way to the looters. There was an alternative. The cops could have broken 

one small window and distributed the nuts, fruit juices, and bottle water in an organized 

and systematic manner. But they did not. Instead they spent hours playing cat and mouse, 

temporarily chasing away the looters. 

We were finally airlifted out of New Orleans two days ago and arrived home yesterday 

(Saturday). We have yet to see any of the TV coverage or look at a newspaper. We are willing 

to guess that there were no video images or front-page pictures of European or affluent white 

tourists looting the Walgreen’s in the French Quarter. 

We also suspect the media will have been inundated with “hero” images of the National 

Guard, the troops and the police struggling to help the “victims” of the Hurricane. What you 

will not see, but what we witnessed, were the real heroes and sheroes of the hurricane relief 

effort: the working class of New Orleans. The maintenance workers who used a fork lift 

to carry the sick and disabled. The engineers, who rigged, nurtured and kept the generators 

running. The electricians who improvised thick extension cords stretching over blocks to 

share the little electricity we had in order to free cars stuck on rooftop parking lots. Nurses 

who took over for mechanical ventilators and spent many hours on end manually forcing air 

into the lungs of unconscious patients to keep them alive. Doormen who rescued folks stuck 

in elevators. 

Refinery workers who broke into boat yards, “stealing” boats to rescue their neighbors 

clinging to their roofs in flood waters. Mechanics who helped hot-wire any car that could 

be found to ferry people out of the City. And the food service workers who scoured the 

commercial kitchens improvising communal meals for hundreds of those stranded. Most of 

these workers had lost their homes, and had not heard from members of their families, yet 

they stayed and provided the only infrastructure for the 20% of New Orleans that was not 

under water. 

On Day 2, there were approximately 500 of us left in the hotels in the French Quarter. 

We were a mix of foreign tourists, conference attendees like ourselves, and locals who had 

checked into hotels for safety and shelter from Katrina. Some of us had cell phone contact 

with family and friends outside of New Orleans. We were repeatedly told that all sorts of 

resources including the National Guard and scores of buses were pouring in to the City. The 

buses and the other resources must have been invisible because none of us had seen them. 

We decided we had to save ourselves. So we pooled our money and came up with $25,000 

to have ten buses come and take us out of the City. Those who did not have the requisite 

$45.00 for a ticket were subsidized by those who did have extra money. We waited for 48 

hours for the buses, spending the last 12 hours standing outside, sharing the limited water, 

food, and clothes we had. We created a priority boarding area for the sick, elderly and new 

born babies. We waited late into the night for the “imminent” arrival of the buses. The 

buses never arrived. We later learned that the minute the arrived at the City limits, they were 

commandeered by the military.


By day 4 our hotels had run out of fuel and water. Sanitation was dangerously abysmal. 

As the desperation and despair increased, street crime as well as water levels began to rise. 

The hotels turned us out and locked their doors, telling us that the “officials” told us to report 

to the convention center to wait for more buses. As we entered the center of the City, we 

finally encountered the National Guard. The Guards told us we would not be allowed into 

the Superdome as the City’s primary shelter had descended into a humanitarian and health 

hellhole. The guards further told us that the City’s only other shelter, the Convention Center, 

was also descending into chaos and squalor and that the police were not allowing anyone 

else in. Quite naturally, we asked, “If we can’t go to the only 2 shelters in the City, what 

was our alternative?” The guards told us that that was our problem, and no they did not have 

extra water to give to us. This would be the start of our numerous encounters with callous 

and hostile “law enforcement”. 

We walked to the police command center at Harrah’s on Canal Street and were told the 

same thing, that we were on our own, and no they did not have water to give us. We now 

numbered several hundred. We held a mass meeting to decide a course of action. We agreed 

to camp outside the police command post. We would be plainly visible to the media and 

would constitute a highly visible embarrassment to the City officials. The police told us that 

we could not stay. Regardless, we began to settle in and set up camp. In short order, the 

police commander came across the street to address our group. He told us he had a solution: 

we should walk to the Pontchartrain Expressway and cross the greater New Orleans Bridge 

where the police had buses lined up to take us out of the City. The crowd cheered and began 

to move. We called everyone back and explained to the commander that there had been lots 

of misinformation and wrong information and was he sure that there were buses waiting for 

us. The commander turned to the crowd and stated emphatically, “I swear to you that the 

buses are there.” 

We organized ourselves and the 200 of us set off for the bridge with great excitement 

and hope. As we marched past the convention center, many locals saw our determined and 

optimistic group and asked where we were headed. We told them about the great news. 

Families immediately grabbed their few belongings and quickly our numbers doubled and 

then doubled again. Babies in strollers now joined us, people using crutches, elderly clasping 

walkers and others people in wheelchairs. We marched the 2-3 miles to the freeway and up 

the steep incline to the Bridge. It now began to pour down rain, but it did not dampen our 

enthusiasm. 

As we approached the bridge, armed Gretna sheriffs formed a line across the foot of the 

bridge. Before we were close enough to speak, they began firing their weapons over our 

heads. This sent the crowd fleeing in various directions. As the crowd scattered and dissipated, 

a few of us inched forward and managed to engage some of the sheriffs in conversation. 

We told them of our conversation with the police commander and of the commander’s 

assurances. The sheriffs informed us there were no buses waiting. The commander had lied 

to us to get us to move. 

We questioned why we couldn’t cross the bridge anyway, especially as there was little 

traffic on the 6-lane highway. They responded that the West Bank was not going to become 

New Orleans and there would be no Superdomes in their City. These were code words for if 


you are poor and black, you are not crossing the Mississippi River and you were not getting 

out of New Orleans. 

Our small group retreated back down Highway 90 to seek shelter from the rain under 

an overpass. We debated our options and in the end decided to build an encampment in 

the middle of the Ponchartrain Expressway on the center divide, between the O’Keefe and 

Tchoupitoulas exits. We reasoned we would be visible to everyone, we would have some 

security being on an elevated freeway and we could wait and watch for the arrival of the yet 

to be seen buses. 

All day long, we saw other families, individuals and groups make the same trip up the 

incline in an attempt to cross the bridge, only to be turned away. Some chased away with 

gunfire, others simply told no, others to be verbally berated and humiliated. Thousands of 

New Orleaners were prevented and prohibited from self-evacuating the City on foot. 

Meanwhile, the only two City shelters sank further into squalor and disrepair. The only 

way across the bridge was by vehicle. We saw workers stealing trucks, buses, moving vans, 

semi-trucks and any car that could be hotwired. All were packed with people trying to escape 

the misery New Orleans had become. 

Our little encampment began to blossom. Someone stole a water delivery truck and 

brought it up to us. Let’s hear it for looting! A mile or so down the freeway, an army truck 

lost a couple of pallets of C-rations on a tight turn. We ferried the food back to our camp 

in shopping carts. Now secure with the two necessities, food and water; cooperation, community, 

and creativity flowered. We organized a clean up and hung garbage bags from the 

rebar poles. We made beds from wood pallets and cardboard. We designated a storm drain 

as the bathroom and the kids built an elaborate enclosure for privacy out of plastic, broken 

umbrellas, and other scraps. We even organized a food recycling system where individuals 

could swap out parts of C-rations (applesauce for babies and candies for kids!). 

This was a process we saw repeatedly in the aftermath of Katrina. When individuals had 

to fight to find food or water, it meant looking out for yourself only. You had to do whatever 

it took to find water for your kids or food for your parents. When these basic needs were met, 

people began to look out for each other, working together and constructing a community. 

If the relief organizations had saturated the City with food and water in the first 2 or 3 

days, the desperation, the frustration and the ugliness would not have set in. Flush with the 

necessities, we offered food and water to passing families and individuals. Many decided 

to stay and join us. Our encampment grew to 80 or 90 people. From a woman with a 

battery powered radio we learned that the media was talking about us. Up in full view on the 

freeway, every relief and news organizations saw us on their way into the City. Officials were 

being asked what they were going to do about all those families living up on the freeway? 

The officials responded they were going to take care of us. Some of us got a sinking feeling. 

“Taking care of us” had an ominous tone to it. 

Unfortunately, our sinking feeling (along with the sinking City) was correct. Just as dusk 

set in, a Gretna Sheriff showed up, jumped out of his patrol vehicle, aimed his gun at our 

faces, screaming, “Get off the fucking freeway”. A helicopter arrived and used the wind 

from its blades to blow away our flimsy structures. As we retreated, the sheriff loaded up his


truck with our food and water. Once again, at gunpoint, we were forced off the freeway. All 

the law enforcement agencies appeared threatened when we congregated or congealed into 

groups of 20 or more. In every congregation of “victims” they saw “mob” or “riot”. We felt 

safety in numbers. Our “we must stay together” was impossible because the agencies would 

force us into small atomized groups. 

In the pandemonium of having our camp raided and destroyed, we scattered once again. 

Reduced to a small group of 8 people, in the dark, we sought refuge in an abandoned school 

bus, under the freeway on Cilo Street. We were hiding from possible criminal elements but 

equally and definitely, we were hiding from the police and sheriffs with their martial law, 

curfew and shoot-to-kill policies. 

The next days, our group of 8 walked most of the day, made contact with New Orleans 

Fire Department and were eventually airlifted out by an urban search and rescue team. We 

were dropped off near the airport and managed to catch a ride with the National Guard. The 

two young guardsmen apologized for the limited response of the Louisiana guards. They 

explained that a large section of their unit was in Iraq and that meant they were shorthanded 

and were unable to complete all the tasks they were assigned. 

We arrived at the airport on the day a massive airlift had begun. The airport had become 

another Superdome. We 8 were caught in a press of humanity as flights were delayed for 

several hours while George Bush landed briefly at the airport for a photo op. After being 

evacuated on a coast guard cargo plane, we arrived in San Antonio, Texas. 

There the humiliation and dehumanization of the official relief effort continued. We 

were placed on buses and driven to a large field where we were forced to sit for hours and 

hours. Some of the buses did not have air-conditioners. In the dark, hundreds if us were 

forced to share two filthy overflowing porta-potties. Those who managed to make it out with 

any possessions (often a few belongings in tattered plastic bags) we were subjected to two 

different dog-sniffing searches. 

Most of us had not eaten all day because our C-rations had been confiscated at the airport 

because the rations set off the metal detectors. Yet, no food had been provided to the men, 

women, children, elderly, disabled as they sat for hours waiting to be “medically screened” 

to make sure we were not carrying any communicable diseases. 

This official treatment was in sharp contrast to the warm, heart-felt reception given to 

us by the ordinary Texans. We saw one airline worker give her shoes to someone who was 

barefoot. Strangers on the street offered us money and toiletries with words of welcome. 

Throughout, the official relief effort was callous, inept, and racist. There was more suffering 

than need be. Lives were lost that did not need to be lost. 


[192] Thelonius: Class Struggles in Katrina and the Media’s Conveyance of “rescue.”. 

Good God, I had no idea..... Thank you so much for the forward 157. 


[193] Thugtorious: Beer and Study Sessions. I don’t remember where he said it, but 

Marx looked at alcohol and other substances as symptomatic of the contradictions in Capitalism. 

The laborer drinks to escape the reality of the oppressive society of which he/she 


is subjugated to. And, the Capitalist escapes the alienated existence that he/she lives. In a 

Marxian Utopia, the worker would embrace nature, this reality, and production, and through 

producing, would find him/herself (that was a bastardized summation of the argument, I 

apologize). 

So, in honor of Marx and being we live in a Capitalistic society, I think we should most 

definitely find a pub that we could do it at and drink our proletariat sorrows away!!! Or, still 

a coffee shop would work. 


[196] Thelonius: Commanding Heights. I would very much enjoy having a cleaner 

understanding of the framework which belies our cash driven economic method, especially 

from a socialists point of view. A fantastic WGBN Boston, PBS special “The commanding 

heights” illustrated how different economic frameworks are beneficial not by virtue of the 

framework itself, but by the social/political and infrastructural conditions of a particualr 

economy. in other words....once the oil barrel is empty..capitalism may run for its life. So 

many in this class seem to have a firmer understanding of how all of this works and why. I’d 

like to engage the discussion out of class... 


[201] Thugtorious: Beer and Study Sessions. RE: 198. We got a time, date, and general 

location. However, at last check, there were still a lot of pubs remaining in our conservative 

little city. So, which one shall we begin our “Class Consciousness” meetings at? 


[202] Thelonius: Beer and Study Sessions. Responding to 193: In a Marxian Utopia, i’d 

be running a speakesie in the woods of Concord, MA next to a pond and a beanfield. 


[209] Thugtorious: Re: Beer and Study Sessions. RE: 202: Ahhh, you jaded and 

alienated soul. It is not your fault you rely on hops and barley (regardless of what step 1 

says in the 12 steps), it is the system you were involuntarily brought into. 

I think even Marx enjoyed a nice oakey scotch, or a good full bodied Heffie every now 

and then. He is from Germany, the land of beer. 


[215] TriPod: ALL out war in Iraq. I thought there was some sort of Discussion room. 

I guess this will work! 

I spoke to Hans this morning and he said That everyone in the 1st section should have 

contributed to this by Saturday night and to make sure everyone remembers the deadline. I 

will start with this e-mail 

I am so sick and tired of hearing about the Iraq War. I Support our troops and feel like 

we are dong the right thing. I know there is no way we can leave Iraq or we will really be 

screwed. The Insurgency in Iraq has declared all out war Against the Shiite Muslims. I hope 

that Muslims in Iraq and all over the World will step and defend themselves. The only way 

to over come Osama and Crazy people who are killing their selves in the name of religion is 

to fight back and stand up for your selves. Screw the Insurgency. Lets kill them. I hope all 

Muslims will stand up for themselves. 

Message [215] referenced by [218], [219], and [229]. Next Message by TriPod is [234].


[216] Xerho: War Like Economics - Different schools of thought. It is always interesting 

to me to see the huge spectrum of emotions and reactions to the topic of war. I have 

personal views, and they tend to move and adjust slightly as I learn more about the subject, 

but what is more fascinating is to see where others come from and how they have arrived 

where they have and what makes them think the way they do. 

In economics, it is the same way with as many ideas of economics as there are people, 

but with people tending to join certain schools of thought or sections that generally agree 

with what they think. 

As I learn more about Marx and his ideas, it helps me to form more of my own through 

partial “adoption” of his ideas and making them be a part of my own. 

I agree with the war in Iraq, but I think it is MUCH more complicated then a simple “I 

agree” or “disagree”. It is very dynamic. My support is there, but personal approval and 

opinion is different in the various areas of the topic. 


[218] Overlord: ALL out war in Iraq. As a reply to TriPod 215: 

I dont know why you would be sick of hearing about the war. I don’t enjoy the fact that 

we are over there but I do want to know about the progress (or lack there of). The war, 

whether you like it or not, is still there. It will still be there for MANY years to come in 

order to achieve the goals that the US has set. Who really knows if we are doing the right 

thing, but I do know we are doing something. That is the choice of our current leadership. 

I will support the troops, but I think instead the US should look at our leaders. Should we 

support them and their decisions? I think it is out duty to support them but at the same time 

I think we should voice our concerns with them. We are in a strange place in the US right 

now because some people are forgeting the fact that we have the right to protest and make 

our voices heard. A lot of people don’t take advantage of this right. I personally think we 

should let them work out their own country’s fate. The US had to endure a civil war in order 

to become what we are today. Iraq may have to do the same. 


[219] Thelonius: ALL out war in Iraq. Re: 215: You know that a cause has headed south 

when even the strongest of conservative proponents have begun to dissent from the cause, 

as many of my friends have done. It appears that the commanding heights really don’t 

have a very clear perspective of what our “interests” are. Mr. Bush has all to admittedly 

conspired with his school of the“...have and have mores.” Katrina is one of many reminders 

that American interest ought to be focused in America, and that we must actively begin 

defining or redefining what “American values” really are. Imperialism? Hasn’t done too 

well historically. As far as the war is concerned. I am personally in the rather precarious 

situation of being for the war, but against the troops. 


[220] Thugtorious: ALL out war in Iraq. I think Bill Maher put it best in his conclusion 

to his HBO special: you have lost a huge economic surplus, thousands of troops, 4 jetliners, 

2 skyscrapers, and New Orleans all on your watch, Bush. And, I agree, God does speak to 

you and he is saying: “Take a hint”! 


I hate to bring this into it, but it is a Marx class, so: I think the war is a contradiction. Discussion 

about links with Osama and other Terrorist organizations brought about the war in 

the first place; when no connection to Osama was found, the focus easily shifted to weapons 

of mass destruction. We went in for WMD, didn’t find any. The focus was easily shifted 

to the tyrant Sadham Hussein. We captured him, and now are attempting to institute this 

mythical idea of “democracy.” 

Now, the contradictions. First off, why are people so easily misdirected from one causality 

or purpose for the war to another? Why are not people congregating in the streets, 

screaming out questions, and looking for answers? Herbert Marcuse, in “One Dimensional 

Man,” argues that we are so inundated and inculcated with this system, society, technology, 

language, etc. that we are blinded and cannot see what is going on. Instead of being 

multi-dimensional beings that critique, responds, and act with or against these things, we 

are transformed into another automaton of the system itself. Has the irony of the words 

“smart bomb” or “peace keeping war” ever occurred to anyone? They both seem to be polar 

opposites, and yet are used to describe horrific ideas with its opposite providing a sense 

of calmness. This war is a contradiction of much the same nature. “We are over there for 

Democracy, to free a people, yada yada yada.” But, those people have curfews and are under 

a military state right now; it almost seems that they are worse off than before, in comparison. 

Are they better off? We have yet to see, but that begs the question: What is better off? Our 

idea of better off, or their idea? This brings about concerns of cultural relativity, sovereignty, 

etc. Point Being: The media, our leaders, and the “powers that be” have us all on a leash 

and lead us to what they want us to see, not what is really going on, not to the numerous 

contradictions that lay beneath. 

Honestly, terrorism is a problem and threat, but it is being used by our “leaders” (leaders, 

only in the sense that they hold the handle to the leash) as a “blank check” to do whatever 

they want. If it is found that General Mills has a link to Al-Queada, no matter how absurd 

or far off the connection is, it will be illegal to eat Cheerios. That’s a little far stretching, but 

George Orwell was right: big brother is upon us. 


[224] Demosthenes: re: All out war . Responding to 218: 

I agree with Overlord in saying that I’m not sick and tired of hearing about the war. 

There is a war going on, and it will not disappear by not paying any attention to it. I don’t 

think that’s what Tripod really meant, though. What I, personally, am getting tired of is 

the unceasing efforts of both left AND right-wing enthusiasts to politicize every event that 

unfolds in the war. Anything and everything is now ammunition in the battle between the 

two parties in our government. 

I enjoy the spraypaint on the sidewalk as I walk the few blocks to school: “No to terrorism 

means no to war,” and my favorite, “Dubya stands for WHORE.” I know I’m not old enough 

to have observed the political tensions in the country at length, but has anyone else noticed 

how divided the country is becoming?


Iraq may be involved in a major struggle. Let us hope it does not come to a full-scale 

civil war. At the same time, though, I am very anxious to observe the political atmosphere 

between now and the next presidential elections. I hope civil war isn’t in OUR future. :) 


[225] Thugtorious: RE: 219 Re: ALL out war in Iraq. “I am personally 

in the rather precarious situation of being for the war, but against the 

troops.” 

God, I hope you are joking because that is one of the funniest things I have heard all day. 

If you aren’t joking, that is one of the most atrocious things I have heard. I am still laughing. 


[229] MK: ALL out war in Iraq. Tripod 215— 

I think that the discussion room is intended for the discussion of Marx. 

Message [229] referenced by [232], [234], and [235]. Next Message by MK is [290]. 

[232] Thugtorious: Re: ALL out war in Iraq. RE: 229: Hans wants the free discussion 

to be about anything, except the homework. We can discuss whatever aspect of society, 

history, politics, pop culture, etc. we want. (But, I’m pretty sure within some sort of decency 

paradigm). 

Message [232] referenced by [238] and [323]. Next Message by Thugtorious is [269]. 

[234] TriPod: Re: ALL out war in Iraq. Re: 229: Hans is that right? I thought we could 

talk about anything we wanted to. Hans will you clarify that for us. 


[235] TriPod: Re: ALL out war in Iraq. Re: 229: I guess I am not sick of hearing about 

the war, but I am sick of hearing these psychos who die in the name of “ALLAH” threaten 

us Americans and now the Shiite Muslims. Screw Osama and his followers. They’re just 

jealous we have their OIL!!!! 


[238] Thelonius: Re: ALL out war in Iraq. Re: 232: When you give a moment’s 

thought to the magnitude of this Vietnam-like controversial war, the amount of tax dollars 

involved, which consequently could be very useful at home, the number of ethical liabilites 

we face as Americans, and the potential for regional and religious backlash against us, “the 

Americans”, should we not be discussing these events to painful exhaustion? 


[239] Thelonius: Screw them, they are jealous we have their oil!? Re: 235: Are you 

just deliberately being outrageous? 


[245] Hans: What to discuss on econ-5080. Yes, Thugtorious has it right. The free 

discussion can be about anything except the homeworks. My experience with giving the 

class participants so much freedom has been very good in the past; this has sometimes 

elicited extremely interesting discussions. 


[246] Hans: A point of internet etiquette. If you respond to someone else’s email, please 

don’t forward the full text of that email back to the list. This looks very messy and is a waste 


of bandwidth. If you want to exhibit a relevant portion of that email, it is ok to include that 

relevant part, but you should cut out everything which is irrelevant for your response. 

Here is a different reason not to forward the entire email which you get from the class 

list back to the class: this email is addressed to you individually, therefore if you send it 

back to the class, everybody can see your true email address. (I had to go over to individual 

addresses in order to prevent the emails from disappearing in the spam folders of the class 

participants.) 

Hans. 


[247] Jerm: Re: ALL out war in Iraq. Re: 219: How could you be for the war but 

against the troops when it is those troops who put their lives on the line to protect us. In 

the U.S. we all have rights, rights to voice our opinion and believe what we want to believe. 

It is because of these troops that we even have the right to do these things without getting 

punished or even killed for doing so. I can understand being against the war itself, but as 

U.S. citizens we have a duty to support those who fight for our freedom. 

Message [247] referenced by [2007SP:676]. Next Message by Jerm is [493]. 

[255] Ernesto: Response to the topic of the so called war in Iraq. How do you figure 

we are doing the right thing? We went into Iraq on fabricated intelligence and have since 

turned it into a Humanitarian mission by freeing these people from dictatorial control. We 

failed to convince the majority of our allies of our intentions because there is no justification. 

We have spent a quarter trillion dollars and thousands of lives to benefit a select group of 

companies and bed fellows of MR. Bush. 


[262] Hans: Subject headers. Astclair wrote: 

I must not correctly be entered into the system. I am getting the emails fine, but i am not 

being allowed to submit questions responses to the other email address. Despite what it is 

telling me, i am entering the subject with the correct header. 

The colon-colon-Q-colon line should not go into the subject header but should be the first 

line of the message body. If the error message says: 

This submission to das-kapital@marx.econ.utah.edu was rejected because 

it did not begin with a line indicating the question number, such as 

::Q: 34 

then the message body is meant, not the subject header. The subject header itself should 

contain a brief title characterizing the content of your message. 

Hans. 


[265] McDugall: i know this is the wrong place for homework, but... Re: 258: You 

must send hw questions to the das-kapital email list. 

Next Message by McDugall is [380].


[267] Gza: study and war. i want to get in on a study group. one of which that plans to 

meet at a bar on the weekend. (not that i am an alcoholic, i wont say i’m not), but it sounds 

more productive to me. and i do better work while i’m relaxed. 

with regards to the war discussion. i think its great that the u.s. is being terrorized. the 

u.s. has done it to numerous counties throughout history to maintain hegemonic control over 

others. we have been the largest source of terror in the world. i also think that a benefit of 

attacks on the u.s. is that it will hurt us economically and will challenge a major source of 

capitalism in the world market place. 

i want to see the u.s. reduced to a third world country, i think it will be inevitable anyways, 

might as well have it sooner than later because it will illustrate the flaws in our imperialistic 

attitudes. 


[269] Thugtorious: study and war. First off, the study group: So is the plan Murphy’s 

at 3:00 on Sunday? Or, did people have another place in mind? I think we had it narrowed 

down to at least 3:00 on Sunday. 

As for the war remarks: I think that it is a gross overstatement to say that it is “great 

that the U.S. is being terrorized.” Unfortunately, it is the decision making of a select few 

(terrorists and nations alike) that brings about disastrous effects for us all. We, as a nation, 

are subjugated to the consequences of the actions of Mr. Bush, much the same as the people 

of Iraq were/are subjugated to the actions of Saddam, our leaders, and leaders of terrorist 

organizations. It seems as if we lift our lives with no real sense of control but completely at 

the whim of those in power. 

I think that there is a common error committed by all when analyzing the war: we look at 

it like a game of Risk without considering the implications upon millions of people in each 

country. Merely by chance, divine birth right, or some other type of theory defining birth, 

we are placed in our current situation. And, from this, we claim allegiance to the powers that 

run said nation. Unfortunately, we have lost, as Marx calls it, the “essence” of what being 

human is and being part of this species is: the capacity to think, create, and BE human. We 

are not part of a nation, allied to others by some arbitrary line on a map, but we are all part 

of one species that has an incredible gift: the capacity to critically think. Be it artistically, 

analytically, theoretically, abstractly, etc., it does not matter. We all have this trait. But, 

it seems under these regimes that we have “forgotten” or somewhat ignore this awesome 

ability. We hear what they want us to hear, we see what they want us to see, and we forget to 

ask “WHY?”!!!! It doesn’t matter if you are in the Middle East, or here in the United States, 

everyone should stand up as individuals, and thus as a species, and ask “why?”!! Make our 

leaders accountable since we bear the effects. 

There is no reason why we should be or need to be terrorized for the actions of a few, and 

there is no reason that they should be or need to be terrorized due to the overzealous attitude 

of our Commander and Chief. We are the same, and from that, we should respond to these 

gross violations of human decency one in the same! 



[270] PAE: study session and war in Iraq. First thanks to everyone who responded to 

the study session idea. I am available Sunday night and am completely open to meeting 

anywhere. Let’s just pick a place today and go with it. 

Now I agree with all the people saying the war for the most part has been a waste. I think 

the American people were tricked into believing one agenda when it was obviously about 

something completely different. The one good thing you could say is that Saddam is no 

longer in power. He is a dangerous man and I believe he would have continued to torture 

and kill his own people. Although that one good thing does not make up for all the lives lost 

(on both sides), money spent, and enemies created. 


[271] Thelonius: study and war. Re: 267: Mr. Gza- 

Your input is rather brash, but pretty sweet that you don’t mind divulging so honestly. 

Sure, i agree that the U.S., in order to re-assume a sense of national dignity and validated 

patriotism (Not Imperial Nationalis...Fox News), needs to undergo some degree of acccountability 

and recrimination, BUT... Let’s not forget that it is the United States that has housed, 

clothed, fed, educated and raised us to who we are now. Granted, that process may not have 

occured in the Utopic moral sense that we certainly feel they ought to, but it is true, and i 

have come to feel a sense of responsibility for the character of this nation...given my debt to 

it. True, Santa Claus is Bull Shit, there really isn’t an Easter Bunnie, your parents probably 

don’t like eachother very much and girls are going to break your heart more often than not, 

but blaming the nation for believing in fantasies isn’t very cogent a conclusion. Do you think 

we can generate a more constructive re-evaluation, and design contemporary values to have 

a legitimate sense of pride in? I fuckin do. 


[272] Thelonius: Claire, love for free? Dear Claire- 

I love to hear the phrase...“money can’t buy love or happiness...”, and I want to believe so 

sincerely that this assertion is true. What then can be said that the primary cause of divorce 

stems from finanncial woes, and I wonder if there are then more single subsisting men and 

women than there are single men and women who are wealthy. Needless to say that there 

is some validity in the assertion that chicks want dudes with dollars, and fellas with dollars, 

mostly like women with...“beautiful eyes”. Also..my good friend loves music as much as he 

loves anything that can be loved. Ever since he bought an Ipod and downloaded 300 albums 

on it...I must admit, he seems alot happier. What’s going on here, Claire?? 


[274] Nazgul: Singing songs in Beer Halls. Just confirming that on Sunday a study group 

will meet at Murphy’s at 3:00pm. This location will not change, if it does I have no problem 

studying and drinking by myself. 

Just a little FYI, when Marx was studying law at the University of Bonn he was the 

President of the Trier Tavern Club, as a result he spent more time singing songs in beer halls 

than he should have, a result which caused a significant decline in his grade. But, everything 

seemed to work out fine for him. 

I’ll see you guys on Sunday.



[275] Demosthenes: Re: study and war. RE: 271: I appreciate your civility, Thelonius. 

After reading Gza’s contribution below I sure as hell didn’t feel like complimenting him 

on his honesty. If I could find a way to put my outrage into words worthy of it, I would. 

Seriously, though. “we have been the largest source of terror in the world”? Please. 

I’ve been sitting here at the keyboard for fifteen minutes now; typing a line, back- spacing, 

and typing again. I’m stunned. I give up. 


[276] Nazgul: Gza war comment. I’m just curious Gza, why do you want the US reduced 

to a 3rd world country? By illustrating our flaws and “imperialistic attitudes” what do you 

gain and perhaps more importantly what do the individuals living in America gain? I can 

understand the frustrations in many government policies but to make such a bold statement, 

I would hope you have some reasoning behind it. 

Please let us know, I am open to your viewpoint I just can’t see it right now. 


[278] Overlord: Re: study and war. 271: All of this talk about war, George W, and 

our beloved country has me on a slight tangent. We as U.S. citizens have an interesting 

life. Society molds us in to the majority. This becomes the new standard and we are all 

expected to conform and follow this standard. Those of us that don’t conform and speak up 

are usually met with resistance. The irony here is the fact that it is honorable to be a leader 

and speak up. These leaders usually reform the standard and mold a different society. I read 

comments made by Gza and I understand the comments to a point. I understand them but I 

do not agree with them. This person is speaking up and standing out from the crowd in an 

extreme fashion. I am actually quite proud of those who have responded. Instead of greeting 

this persons comments with utter negativity, they have responded to the comments looking 

for more information. If I step back and read these comments and replies, I am forced to 

see that we are not surrounded by the majority in this class. We are in a sense the minority. 

We are those that think out side of the general ideas of the American public. This in an 

interesting dynamic. Instead of being ,for lack of a better term, repressed these individuals 

are encouraged to speak. They are encouraged to elaborate and offer some clarification. 

Now for my interpretation of GZA’s comments. 

In a sense the American public is my family and I will refer to them as such. I do not 

wish harm on my family. I do not want any single person in my family harmed. To that I do 

not think it is a good thing that members of my family have been killed or hurt. Now some 

members of my family have hurt and continue to hurt others. I still do not wish any harm 

come to them. I do wish they would recognize that what they do causes other families great 

pain and hardship. In most cases members of my family do not recognize this and it usually 

takes the same pain and hardship to make them recognize this. In this sense I can say it is a 

good thing that we have had to go through pain and hardship through terrorism. If members 

of my family now feel the same pain that they have been inflicting on others for many years. 

The problem is only a few members of my family cause others pain. In no way do I think 

the rest of my family should suffer for the mistakes and misconduct of the few. My family 


has fought to damn hard through out its history to become something less than it deserves. 

To many members of my family had to die to make my home as beautiful as it is today. 

We as Americans have earned this right. We have a great country and DO NOT forget this 

because of the few that decide to cause harm to others. Also DO NOT wish harm on a single 

person in my family or you will pay. 


[280] Thugtorious: And . . . I just realized what Hans was talking about when he said 

stop replying to messages: I guess the proverbial “cat” is out of the bag with my real identity. 

Damn!! 


[281] Parmenio: Why not a chat room? I can’t stand the format of this “class”, I was 

expecting something like a forum, a chat room, where we don’t have to use our e-mail like 

this. That would be so much easier to read and respond to. This would be so much easier to 

use if we had that. 


[282] Tink: There’s us, and there’s U.S. I had a professor at the University I attend 

in Australia who has been a very high ranking government official, has done diplomatic 

service and is currently an advisor to the DFAT of the Australian government. He had spent 

much time here in America working with the government and is very knowlegdable about 

Washington. He specializes in foreign policy theory. (which we all know is very different 

from practice) I found it interesting to hear his lectures when they involved the US and US 

politics. One thing that he was very careful to emphasize to the students there was that there 

was a big difference between the US government and the American people. Their goals 

are not always the same, and despite grandiose efforts to be the “voice” of the people, the 

US government operations are often hardly that. I think it might be wise to keep this in 

mind when wishing ill-fate upon an entire country...are we angry with the actions of the 

government, or the people? And just what have we done to fix anything? 

I for one find the US to be a pompous, arrogant, glutton when it comes to its image in 

the international sphere. And yet, show me a country that isn’t working towards the same 

luxuries and powers that we enjoy? One of my friend from Australia recently criticized us 

and our handling of hurricane Katrina, not because of slow government response or political 

mumbo jumbo, but because of the collapse of social order, the raping and pillaging, etc. He 

confidently told me that if such a disaster were to happen there, such dysfunction would 

NEVER occur. I laughed at him. 

I found it interesting that to note Australians look down on New Zealanders they way 

some American’s look down at Canadians or Mexicans, and then turn around and tell us 

what jerks we are. (they call us “sepo’s” short for septic tank, not quite as cute as Aussies 

or Kiwi’s, eh?) This hypocrisy is present in many countries. They hate us because we are 

powerful and trample around pursuing our own self-interest—which is exactly what every 

other country in the world wants to do, and is trying to do, we just happen to be a part of 

one of the few that has accomplished it above all the others. Should America ever become 

a 3rd world country (which, if you know what a 3rd world country is, we know this cannot 

happen) then there will simply be another big jerk prancing around making us feel like 

the inferior victims. I am not a big supporter of many things going with our country right


now, especially the war. It was beyond frustrating going to the voting booths last fall and 

trying to pick between the lesser of two evils in our presidential candidates. I 100% support 

the idea that big changes need to be made in our system...but teaching people lessons by 

wishing terrorism and death and famine doesn’t seem practical, when those things have 

already happened elsewhere for us to learn from. Wouldn’t it be nice if history stopped 

repeating itself? 


[284] Thelonius: Reply–There’s us, and there’s U.S. I would like to extend a bravo 

to you for taking the time to express your broader view of the current state of affairs. The 

International opinion of the U.S. is something few of us consider. A systematic change in 

the way the United States is run is certainly something many Americans are interested in 

for the sake of self-respect. i don’t believe many U.S. citizens have a true sense of dignity 

or humble appreciation for thier country, precisely for the reasons you cited: unsatisfactory 

representation. Can I only say....A Real 3rd Party. One neccesary point of criticism 

that Americans are accountable for is the chronic habit of blame and scapegoating. Notice 

how President Bush is a master at diffusing responsibility for his lack of readiness, shoddy 

leadership, and misrepresentation through the helix of his administration? If he fauls up, it 

is certain that someone in an exucutive position will be assigned responsibility and resign 

from office (aka be FIRED). American’s at large can very well be guilty of the same apathy, 

or complacence given that in the light of this political, international furor we can simply 

say...“well, what does this have to do with me...our leaders are the ones to be blamed.” in 

truth, this complacence is only possible by a cozy standard of living, courtesy of outsourcing 

manufacturing and cheap oil. In truth, Americans’s won’t rise up until they feel a crunch on 

thier middle class, personal finances. There is no uprising of the moral majority...they are 

at home eating corn and steak. Though we may not be personally responsible for putting 

sincere, and committed soldiers into harms way, we are guilty of shopping at Wal-Mart, not 

taking the bus, watching Fox News and CNN, eating McDonalds French Fries and the like. 

Self-respect does not begin with a change of leadership in Washington, it begins with the 

refinement of personal ideals. 


[285] Thelonius: And . . . Re: 280: i am replying to you last email and i’m not quite clear 

as to what the problem is... Your heading comes up as...“Thugtorius” ¿econ-5080@...etc. 


[286] Thelonius: Thugtorius is a misnomer. Re: 269: Thugtorius is a misnomer, you’ve 

done yourself a disservice..Bravo on your comments. The virtues of a discussion forum is 

that we identify our similarities of opinion and values. It is likely that some of us would have 

been confused as being on the other side of the election line for one reason or another... 


[289] Danske: Re: study and war. Re: 275: If you truly think that Gza then why don’t 

you move one of those areas that the US has terrorized and see if you can live and express 

yourself like you are doing so here. 

You are all right that we are making lots of mistakes, both as a nation and as citizens in 

that nation. As was pointed out there really is no Santa Claus or Easter Bunny. So why does 


everyone like to look at the US and their numerous flaws through a microscope and use a 

weak telescope to look at those elsewhere. 

Message [289] referenced by [290]. Next Message by Danske is [353]. 

[290] MK: Re: study and war. Re: 289: Quoting Danske ¡econ-5080@marx.econ.utah.edu¿ 

Keep in mind that this is in fact a writing course. With that said Gza, capitalization (ABC) 

in addition to commas, periods and other punctuation, just make sense. 

In response to your (albeit ignorant) comment below, (which has been worked over quite 

well for a good portion of the day), I am impressed by your ignorance. 

As a country the United States is a far cry from perfect– quite regulalrly WE are accused 

of greed, foul play, scandal, etc. etc. etc.. However, you are taking for granted the opportunities 

that this country (that you refer to as a terrorist organization) grants you. The 

very fact that you speak (quite freely and without discretion) as you have– is due in part 

to the freedoms that this country grants you. You want to put our country, the home of 

our children in check by supposing that our nation is terrorized? I suppose Gza that you 

may in fact be sitting at the vegan coffee house, spooning ‘sugar in the raw’ and soy crystals 

into your organically fertilized coffee; tossing around anti-government ideas between 

dread-locked counterparts and members of various militias– but here in the real world, we 

raise families, support the men and women (not necessarily the cause- but the persons) that 

keep us safe from TERRORISTS, and educate ourselves with the hope of improving our 

lives, our families and our nation. WE ARE THE PEOPLE– we make up this country– the 

counterproductive nature of your comment leaves me with the impression that a person such 

as yourself lacks the judgement and capacity to lead himself, much less a nation, toward a 

brighter future. 


[291] Guerito: Ute Football. Would Marx be a college football fan? If so, what would he 

think about Utah’s performance against TCU? Anybody witness the Ute’s self destruction in 

tonight’s game? My blood pressure was off the charts out of frustration of the play calling 

from our offensive coordinator Andy Ludwig. He obviously doesn’t see the use-value of 

the spread option offense that put Utah on the map and now has the rest of college football 

trying to implement into their game plan. 

Just wanted to throw a new flavor out on this free discussion board. 


[292] PAE: grading. Do we get graded for posting messages in the discussion area or just 

get credit for posting messages? 


[293] Thugtorious: grading. RE: 292: We get credit just for posting, no matter the 

content or grammar. 


[294] Thugtorious: World Dominance. New question for discussion, but still focused on 

America: there are many different theories about international relations, from the “Village” 

theory to “hegemonic” dominance type of theory. The hegemonic theory claims that a 

nation/country will rise to control, and the nations/countries/cultures “below” the dominant 

country will somewhat unite in an effort to overthrow the dominant country. We saw this


happen with China, the Monguls, Rome, the Ottomans, and even the English empire. A lot 

of people say (and I think rightly so) that America is the hegemonic power of today. 

Now, the question is: where are we at on our dominance? Are we still gaining momentum, 

steam, and ascending to the pinnacle of our power? Or, are we descending back on 

down, and in turn going to “hand” the power over to someone else? (“hand over” the power 

in the sense of lose it, most definitely not voluntarily). 

Message [294] referenced by [295], [296], and [297]. Next Message by Thugtorious is [298]. 

[295] Rudy: World Dominance. Re: 294: Thugtorious, where do “client states” fit into 

the two theories? I suppose that was more applicable in the cold war era under a bi-polar 

system. And could you review the village theory? As for your question I think it depends 

on several factors that are interesting topics. For example, do we define power in terms 

of millitary power and influence (high politics) or do we look at economic power and low 

politics as political scientists define it. And where we are seems hard to define in terms of 

zero-sum gain. It seems to me we’re loosing power, but who is really gaining? I suspect 

China to come into the discussion. Thoughts? 

Message [295] referenced by [298]. Next Message by Rudy is [411]. 

[296] TriPod: World Dominance. Re: 294: I think the America is Losing a little bit 

of steam. I think with the economic struggles we are having, the weakness we are showing 

with the war on terror and with what just recently happened in the south. America has lost a 

lot of strength because other countries can see that we are still struggling to figure out these 

small internal issues. We obviously have a very strong Military and are very powerful. We 

have definitely lost some steam and also lost the respect of other countries. 


[297] Bob: World Dominance. RE: 294: In a way we are still growing or building steam, 

but I feel other countries are catching up and growing even faster. For example, on tv last 

night I was watching about how a flu epidemic could spread through the US and really the 

world and we wouldn’t have a way to really stop it. There is one drog being produced in one 

factory in Europe, but we at the bottom of the waitlist for the drug. It was really eye opening 

to think other countries may be a lot more prepared than the mighty US. I am happy to live 

in America, but I think sometimes Americans can rely to much on the government for aid. 

We must learn to help ourselves and those around us. 

Sorry if this off the topic you were asking, but It was interesting to me. 


[298] Thugtorious: Re: World Dominance. RE: 295: Well, another theory is the East to 

West theory that states the center of world power moves from the east to the west: starts in 

china, moves to the Monguls, on to the Middle East, Rome, etc. The United States arguably 

replaced Britain, and so the next logical move would be back to Asia (according to the 

theory). So, China is most definitely in the picture. 

I am not as knowledgeable about the “village theory,” but it basically argues that each 

nation is its own little village, with customs, ethnicity, and history uniting them. And, over 

time, the villages will work together and become sort of like a global community. It is more 

of the peaceful international relations theory. 


Then, you always have the nuclear destruction option; that is a completely different story 

in its own right. 


[299] Michael: A Request Concerning the Format of Your Submissions. Hello all. 

I’m asking that everyone please use the subject line in their submissions. This way others 

can prioritize their readings of the submissions according to the extent of their interest in 

that topic. 

Again, don’t respond to messages using “Reply to Sender”, this will post your true ID to 

the list. Instead, if you want to respond to what someone has said, you can still indicate that 

in the subject line but then send your message directly. 

Another reminder is that you can view all the homework submissions in a well-organized 

format by going to: 

http://marx.economics.utah.edu/das-kapital/2005fa/ 


[300] Thugtorious: Re: World Dominance. RE: 297: I think Bob’s response is completely 

on topic, but not necessarily as you may think. When it comes down to it, it may not 

be another country that takes us out. Look at New Orleans, consider the possibility of a flu 

strain that is unstoppable, or even an economic downturn of monumental proportions. =20 

I guess kind of what I and Bob are saying is that we may be looking externally too much 

to justify our global dominance. Maybe the true focus should be internally at stabilizing the 

standard of living for all Americans. Interesting, Bob, thanks. 


[301] Gza: my comments. first off i don’t CAPITALIZE because it is a form of discursive 

patriarchy within a linguistic frame. unless it is for “proper” course work, i don’t like to 

capitalize. it perpetuates hierarchies. also i want to see the u.s. as a third world country 

because i think it will force us to live a more ontologically harmonious life. one in which 

is not anthropocentric or based on exploitation. i have been to the third world and the only 

reason it suffers so is because of the economic warfare the u.s. engages in such as trade 

policies and embargoes. we need to realize our role in creating the third world. 


[302] Thugtorious: RE: 301 my comments. “first off i don’t CAP- 

ITALIZE because it is a form of discursive patriarchy within a linguistic 

frame. unless it is for ”proper“ course work, i don’t like to capitalize. it 

perpetuates hierarchies.” 

That is one of the coolest things that I have ever heard. And, yet, my finger seems to go 

to the shift key on its own. I am forever doomed to capitalize!!!!!! 


[303] Pete: World Dominance. I agree with Thug’s assessment of the World Dominance 

issues. There has never been a time in our world history that someone or some nation isn’t 

trying to conquer. It is very sobering to see what Mother Nature can throw our way. Humans 

think they are the dominate one but the truth is Mother Nature is the one in charge.


GZA I understand your frustration but capitalization is nessessary. Why is your name 

capitalized? As for 3rd world countries... Human nature is that of dominance. So there has 

to be 1st, 2nd, and 3rd. 


[304] MK: RE: my comments. Gza, 

Interesting excuses for ignorance and complacency. 


[305] MK: RE: my comments. “i have been to the third world”... 

And how was this “third world”? Read and proof your submissions– they are argument 

enough for the perpetuation of the educational “hierarchy”. 


[306] Thugtorious: RE: 304 Re: my comments. “Interesting excuses 

for ignorance and complacency.” 

Wow. All of this over some discrepancies in grammar usage? Come on, don’t hold back, 

what is the truth underneath this contradiction? As Marx would say: “Let us take a closer 

look.” :-) 


[307] MK: RE: my comments... Thugtorious said in [306]: 

Come on, don’t hold back, what is the truth underneath this contradiction? 

As Marx would say: “Let us take a closer look.” :-) 

What contradiction? 


[308] Demosthenes: Re: My (oops, capitalized) comments. First off, I don’t agree that 

Gza is either ignorant or complacent. I’ve read his submissions to the homeworks. I don’t, 

however, agree with the extreme black-and-whiteness of his comments thus far. (Not that I 

think all of his comments are his actual beliefs, but stretched a bit for attention-getting.) 

I hope your trip to the “third world” was nice, Gza, but I’d like to know how you came to 

the conclusion that the -only- reason they are living in squalor is because of U.S. exploitation. 

On the contrary, I have met some Mexican folks that have worked in some of those nasty, 

evil American sweat-shops down there. They stayed at those jobs for years. They made a 

higher wage than anyone else in their community. Maybe they’d feel really bad if I told them 

they were just being exploited by the capitalist gringos, but I don’t think they’d mind much. 


[309] Thugtorious: Re: my comments... MK asked in [307]: “What contradiction?” 

Sorry, I was just putting a Marxian/Dialectical spin on the matter. I guess the contradiction 

would be focusing on grammar and committing ad hominid fallacies are kind of a red 

herring deterring people from GZA’s true argument. I don’t know, just trying to lighten the 

mood a little. 

I look at this discussion board as a “market place of ideas.” However, if we can not respect 

other’s opinions (no matter how absurd or far away from ours they are) then we cannot have 

a true free discussion of ideas. By making attacks on a person’s grammar, spelling, and word 


choices, we might preempt any further input from that person. And, for a “market place of 

ideas” to be successful, we need as many participants as possible. 

Maybe I am too much of an idealist. 


[310] MK: RE: my comments.... Thugtorious said in [309]: “Maybe I am too much of 

an idealist.” 

Perhaps you are too much of an idealist. 

A market place of ideas need not be a place where one is comfortable suggesting terrorism. 

Terrorism is not a word, or a suggestion to be thrown around lightly. 

My husband was killed while serving in the military (by a terrorist organization) when 

he was a tender 21 years of age – my son now waits a call to duty– and you’re suggesting 

that I embrace the idea of a terrorism simply on the grounds of embracing a market place of 

ideas? How absurd. (Obviously terrorism is not a suggestion to be taken lightly– hence the 

implementation of the Patriot Act.) 

Terrorism includes death, famine, rape, mutilation, torture etc., etc., etc... I cherish my 

family– I cherish this nation, and I will not pretend to respect someone who threatens the 

innocence of the persons/things that I love. 

I will leave it to you to be politically correct– to embrace the idiotic suggestion of terrorism 

and the reduction of our nation to the likes of a third world country. 

Perhaps this kind of a suggestion comes easily to one that has never paid a price for the 

freedoms that he takes for granted. It is more than ignorant– it is disgraceful. 


[311] TimJim: Collection of Random Thoughts. As I have spent the last hour trying to 

keep up and read everyone’s conversations and thoughts, I decided to come up with a few 

of my own as our country has definitely gone through recent experiences that have never 

happened before. 

My first thoughts came as I was reading through Thelonius 284, I don’t understand why 

everyone is so opinionated and outspoken about the hate for Pres. Bush. I know I will take 

quite a hit for this, but I want to get one thing straight before I go on, I neither hate nor love 

Bush. I respect one quality he has over any other president that I have known, He is a leader 

and does what he thinks is right regardless of what anyone else thinks. He does what he 

thinks is best and thats all that he can do. 

Along the same lines with the press so outspoken about Bush, I don’t understand why 

everything in this world (especially a hurricane) can always be related to race. I guess I 

have such an ethnocentric view of the world, because I am a european white male (and the 

majority), but I must admit I am quite sick of Hollywood telling us that nonwhite individuals 

are treated unfairly. In such a terrible national crisis, I am confronted by countless news 

stations plastering Samuel L. Jackson’s face everywhere talking about how the white man is 

bringing everyone else down. I suppose it’s God being racist by displacing so many black 

people from their homes? Isn’t there any real news to report on the effects of the worst 

natural disaster in American History.


Gza, I love America and would never ever dream of living anywhere else, I enjoy the 

amenities no other place enjoys. Sure we may have minor setbacks, but in no way will this 

country become a third world nation until I suppose the world ends. That is not something I 

would ever wish on anyone. 

Also with the hurricane that hit, what are the economic impacts that we are going to face, 

will it really inconvenience anyone to change their habits. Back to 284, the thing that makes 

us American is shopping at Walmart and eating Mcdonald’s french fries and buying SUV’s 

that just give the oil companies more of a reason to raise gas rates. (Supply must equal 

demand right, I just don’t see that equilibrium on gas prices until maybe a few more dollars 

are added on per gallon). Are we going to be able to do without when/if price skyrocket out 

of control. 

I also fully support our war effort in Iraq and I have quite a few friends overseas. I realize 

the pain and sacrifice our country must make to hopefully, in our eyes, make the world terror 

free. 

And finally, as for Marxism, I must admit I am having a hard time understanding some 

of the terms and phrases that he uses. Am I the only one? However reading everyones 

responses and interpretations has really got me thinking and makes things a bit more clear. 

What is everyone’s opinion on Marx’s theories? I don’t think I know enough yet to gain an 

opinion. 


[313] Hans: Please read (1 of 2). Hello everybody in Econ-5080 

I am going to turn off the individual addressing for the mailing list of Econ 5080. Starting 

with the next email, you will still get the same email messages, but they will no longer show 

your email address in the to: field. I am making this change so that your email address will 

not be inadvertently exposed to the list when you re-forward a message from your inbox to 

the list. 

Some Spam filters automatically put all messages into a spam folder which do not explicitly 

show your email address. A few seconds from now I will re-send this message under the 

new configuration. If you do not get the second message, then you should look for it in your 

span folders, and adjust your spam filter so that you continue to receive the list mail. 

Hans. 


[314] Hans: Please read (2 of 2). Hello everybody in Econ-5080 

This is a similar email than the one I just sent, with the individual addressing turned off. 

If you receive this message, then this change was successful. 

Please remember that everybody in shift 1 must have made at least one submission to the 

free discussion list econ-5080 by 3 am early tomorrow morning. 

Hans. 


[315] SueGirl: Caring for the elderly in a capitalist society. Hi everyone, 


After recently completing a gerontology class, it became quite clear to me what little 

respect we have for the elderly in our country. After they reach a certain age, they retire and 

begin to deteriorate health-wise because they no longer feel needed. Then we put them into 

nursing homes because we don’t know how to take care of them. Although Americans are 

living longer, their quality of life may not necessarily be better. 

I wrote a report on the Kibbutzim living in Israel and was greatly impressed. A kibbutz 

is a community where every member works in one way or another (no matter what their 

age or disability) and contributes to the good of the whole. On average, members of a 

kibbutz live 2-3 years longer than non-kibbutz Israeli citizens. This may have to do with 

the level of social capital in the community as well as the requirements for older people to 

work in some way until they die (which causes them to feel of worth and to exercise their 

bodies and brains). I was amazed at the statistics I found and at how elderly people are 

treated there compared to how they are treated in America. In the kibbutz, elderly people 

are respected and are surrounded by a close social network which contributes to their overall 

health. Whereas, in the United States, visits to the elderly are often limited to holidays and 

are they’re treated as a financial burden to family members. The majority of elderly folk 

tend to spend their last few years lonely and unhappy. 

I am curious as to what others think about this. Do you think that since the kibbutz is 

a communal, not a capitalistic society that it improves the social capital and quality of life 

for the elderly? Do you feel that it is difficult for our country to care for the elderly as the 

kibbutz does because we are too concerned about making money? In other words, does the 

fact that our economy is capitalistic negatively effect the elderly? 

SueGirl 

Message [315] referenced by [321] and [356]. Next Message by SueGirl is [504]. 

[318] Bubba: Fulfillment. Thanks to SueGirl and TimJim and others for ending the 

barb-trading over spelling and grammer . . . 

I’m interested in really understanding why people seek money so much and what they do 

with it to obtain fulfillment: 

Marx said commodities are wealth, which enhance life and fill needs originating from 

both the stomach and the mind. 

Some people who get rich spend ludicrous amounts of money on fine food and clothing 

- they are trying to enhance their life with what they imagine will fulfill a need. Does the 

conspicuous-consumption strategy work? I’ve noticed an interesting parallel: When I get 

really tired, I begin to mistake fatigue for a craving for either restaurant food or for dessertfood, 

but when I begin to feed that craving, I realize quickly that I’m not really hungry, 

because it’s not satisfying the lack I feel. I’m intrigued by what SueGirl was talking about 

with serving the elderly. In my own experience, I’ve found immense fulfillment in giving 

my time, energy, talents, friendship, etc. to others to meet their needs that I can see. It’s 

FUN! 

Materialism, and the practice of exploitation that follows it, is a similar situation – trying 

to fill a real need (fulfillment) with the wrong strategy. 

Message [318] referenced by [357]. Next Message by Bubba is [496].


[321] Karlwho: The elderly. I am writing in response to Suegirls’ submission 315. 

I feel the elderly in the kibbutz society live on the average 2-3 years more than their 

Israeli counterparts, for a few reasons. Firstly, I believe (like in the kibbutz) it’s good for the 

elderly to keep their bodies strong by going to work, even after “retirement” I don’t mean 

work for a corporation necessarily, but to stay invigorated by doing things around the house, 

yard work, etc. The body can be kept healthy when being exercised at work. When older 

people retire, they often aren’t as active, and because of this inactivity, their bodies are more 

prone to deterioration. 

Secondly, I feel the elderly need a support group of people around them with whom they 

can socialize. They need to feel wanted and needed. The elderly are experienced and have 

hidden treasures of wisdom. The minds need to be exercised, and this can hardly take place 

in a nursing home! The kibbutz community provides this. 

Lastly, I think the elderly need a reason to live. Their family and friends are practically 

telling them that they are not needed or wanted when they put elderly people in nursing 

homes, or even when they hardly visit. I agree visitation should be increase greatly, as to aid 

the morale of the elderly and give them a great sense of worth. 

In summation, I don’t feel that the poor health of the elderly is a direct cause of our capitalistic 

society. I believe it boils down to individuals within our society. I blame individuals 

for neglecting their parents, grandparents etc. and for succumbing to the ideals of our society 

- which tell them that money is more important than family. These individuals make a 

choice, they often choose to make money rather than look after the elderly they are obligated 

to care for. This choice is a reflection of our materialistic society, and our non-stop pursuit 

of wealth. 


[323] Jingle: Re: ALL out war in Iraq. RE: 232: I do agree with what we are doing 

in Iraq (giving them freedom). I also feel that we should train the Iraqi soldiers as quickly 

as possible and get out of there as quickly as possible, because we are loosing so many 

american soldiers daily. I know that we will probably not get out of Iraq for at least a couple 

more years, and maybe by then the insurgants will not have an army to fight the troops. 

Jingle 


[325] Jingle: good movies. Has anyone seen any good movies lately, or what movies that 

are coming out this fall do you think look good. 


[326] MK: good movies. In response to Jingle’s [325]: Boondock Saints...... old, but 

good. Billy Elliot.. Angela’s Ashes.. all old– but good. A foreign film that is truly 

wonderful– Kolia. 


[327] Jingle: Re: World Dominance. Bob 297, 

I feel that the citizens in the United States do depend upon the government for a lot of 

things. I really don’t want to offend anyone, but the US has a lot more programs than other 

countries that make us depend upon the government. For example medicaid insurance for 


the poor, welfare checks for the poor. If you want to take an example of a lot of people 

depending upon the government look at the people in New Orleans. Almost all of the news 

channels that I watched after the hurricane had interviews with people from New Orleans 

that was complaining about the government for not helping them. I know that not everyone 

down in New Orleans needs government assistance, I’m sorry if I have offended them, but 

the news channels gave New Orleans city a bad name in my opinion. 


[328] Ernesto: Re: ALL out war in Iraq. Re: 323: Freedom can be loosely interpreted 

to encompass what is happening in Iraq. It is only a matter of time before they will democratically 

elect a religious dictator and a new regime will have been created.=20 Freedom 

as we know it will disappear and what will we have to show for it other than halliburton oil 

contracts? You cannot force democracy on a people. 


[329] Astclair: World Dominance and dependency. Bob and Jingle, 

I disagree with the position that Americans are more dependent on the governemnt than 

other developed western states. There certainly are specific demographics that are more 

dependent on the American government than they should be (not necessarily at a fault of 

their own), but this is the exception not the rule. 

It is unrealistic to think that we can be on the cutting edge of all medical developments, 

in response to the mentioned flu treatment. America is the leader in medical technology, 

and the rest of the world benefits from it, and it comes at the expense of American citizens. 

Private companies spend hundreds of millions of dollars just to develop one drug, and this 

is done under the guidance of the FDA. The FDA the gives extensive patent rights fot the 

proprietery drug to the developing drug company. The rest of the world benefits from these 

developments and get the drugs cheaper than the “Americans” who developed them. 

My point with this is that Americans have, do, and will continue to be the leading innovators 

of the world. This combined with our consistent economic growth, and the only 

developed nation with an increasing population, will ensure that the U.S. maintains its frontrunning 

role in global economics. 


[330] Astclair: schizophrenic world leaders. Does anyone else think there are a few 

schizophrenic world leaders out there? With particular mention to Russia’s Putin and Venezuala 

Chavez? 

For starters, Putin is the biggest two faced politician in the world. While he preaches 

his democracy internationally, he is at home siezing private companines and buying media 

outlets. He is busy throwing the wealthiest in jail, and hand-selecting governors across the 

nation that comply with Kremlin rule. I could go on and on about his fascinating leader, but 

I would like to know what other think. 

As for Chavez, is this guy whacked out or what? So, today he says that he has documented 

proof that the United States is planning on invading Venezuala. He has mumbling about this 

for some time now, but it seems interesting that he is on the scene again when we are having 

major oil issues. A few months back I believe he was trying to create some sort of tri-state


oil alliance, which i believe was to include Venezuala, Iran, and Russia (i am not completely 

sure that Russia was the third). He wanted to create an alternative to OPEC, and create more 

favorable trading with China and other up-and-coming oil consumers, while trying to punish 

the United States. It would be interesting to know what this guy really has going on. 

Maybe after we invade we will sort it all out. 

Anyone else have any thoughts on these guys, or have any other schizophrenic leaders 

you want to add? 


[332] Keltose: Marx vs. Capitalism. Is Marx actually against capitalism or just the 

effects of it? In my opinion capitalism is making a profit, and by no means is that by 

exploitation or alienation of any kind, but Marx focuses on that. Is there a way to define our 

economy as better if it weren’t capitalist based? 

Message [332] referenced by [351] and [355]. Next Message by Keltose is [338]. 

[335] Manchu: Re: World Dominance and dependency. RE: 329: Yes, but it seems like 

a contradiction of terms to use the fact that we spend millions of dollars developing one drug 

and pay more for it than other countries, and then in the same breath mention our economic 

prowess. It seems like if these two things continue then at some point there would have to 

be a shift in our role in global economics. 

There is no doubt that we (the U.S) have taken a leading role in development of many 

things, but i personally think it possible that we could be ousted but some more unified 

country at some point in time. 


[336] Nazgul: good movies. Jingle, here are my recommendations for good movies. 

Coming out September 30 is Serenity, it is done by Joss Whedon, creater of Buffy and 

Angel. The movie is based on the short run series Firefly, also created by Whedon, even if 

you didn’t watch the series, I think you will still enjoy the movie. Another good one is the 

Chronicles of Narnia, however that isn’t coming out until December. As far as renting the 

House of Flying Daggers was an amazing marial arts movie. For something funny you can’t 

go wrong with Monty Python and the Holy Grail. And for something truely amazing any 

one of the Lord of the Rings. 


[339] Adamwest: Re: World Dominance. RE: 327: For the most part I agree with 

Jingle’s comments about New Orleans. When hurricane Katrina hit it made me realize how 

unaware we can be to our surrounding environment and our dependance on the government. 

I can’t say what I would have done, but it seemed like there were just so many people in New 

Orleans that were completely unprepared for this disaster. They live in a hurrican threatened 

part of the country right? Though I do understand that many of the people are lower class 

and couldn’t afford transportation out of the city or the proper supplies to be able to sustain 

such a disaster. 

In response to Thugtorious on the Global Powers moving from east to west: 

I look at that theory as more of a transfer of power as new countries were developed 

and an abundance of resources were encountered. I highly doubt that the theory of east to 


west would continue to hold up and transfer from a fully developed nation to another fully 

developed nation just because of the theory has held up so far. 


[340] Keltose: I keep getting a reply from the server that question 198 doesn’t exist, but it 

says that on the syllabus. Is anyone else having this problem? 


[341] Hans: (no subject). 340: Keltose wrote: 

I keep getting a reply from the server that question 198 doesn’t exist, but it 

says that on the sylllabus. Is anyone else having this problem? 

Which question do you mean, Keltose? In the Annotations, Question 197 is on p. 123, 

and Question 199 on p. 126. There is no Question 198. Also in the pdf file 

http://www.econ.utah.edu/ ˜ ehrbar/2005fa.pdf 

which is a good resource because it shows which question was discussed in which class 

in the past, there is no Question 198. 

Hans. 


[344] Nazgul: Sweet Booze. So I’m watching the news tonight and the top story is about 

alcoholic drinks like Bacardi Silver and Mike’s Hard Lemonade being taken out of grocery 

stores because they “entice young girls”. The Attorney General stated that in a survey of 18 

and 19 year old girls they preferred these drinks because they tasted better than beer. I find 

this story ridiculous on two levels one that channel two news put this as their “Top Story”, 

surely there is something of higher quality that they could report on, and two that the state 

would consider such a decision based on the fact that many girls prefer the taste of them 

to beer, despite the fact the alcohol content of these drinks are within the weak limits Utah 

sets. I think Twinkies, HoHo’s and Ben & Jerry’s should be taken out of the grocery store 

because they entice fat people and perpetuate the obesity problem plaguing America. 

If minors want to drink they will drink. If channel Two really wanted to present a quality 

story on this subject matter perhaps they could have provided some statistics that proved 

states which sold “sweet booze” in grocery stores had higher incidences of underage drinking 

as a result of these beverages rather than the culmination of the story being Rod Decker 

taking sip of Bacardi and declaring “it tastes sweet like candy”. Let me know your thoughts. 


[345] Cdew: Sweet Booze. RE: 344: Thank you! I agree completely. It is a ridiculous 

story and could only happen in Utah. Why don’t we take beer out too since that entices 

18 and 19 year old boys. I absolutely agree that minors will drink either way if they want 

to. And it probably is better to have them drinking bacardi silvers and hard lemonade than 

a hard liquor, even though you can’t get liquor in the grocery store. I think this is just the 

beginning step in making Utah a dry state! 

Next Message by Cdew is [630].


[347] Robgodfell: Civility in the face of an anonymous screen. . WARNING TO THE 

EMAIL INUNDATED. THIS MESSAGE IS COMPLETELY UNRELATED TO QUES- 

TIONS OF THE ANNOTATIONS SO MOVE ON AND COME BACK IF YOU FEEL 

THE NEED. . . AND ITS WORDY TO BOOT. 

Even though neck deep in trying to make it through the hundred and seventy plus messages 

posted in my box since the 11th of September (is that really necessary? My email 

provider wants to drop me for taxing the bandwidth) and attempting to make my first homework 

submission in the next 2 hrs and 10 minutes I have seen a developing “discussion” 

amongst classmates turn slightly nasty. 

One should keep his words both soft and tender, because tomorrow he may have to eat 

them. 

Now does this mean that we aren’t allowed our perspectives and obviously deeply held 

convictions about the shape of the world in which we live? —certainly rhetorical- 

So when we feel that someone’s comments warrant aggressive attack would we refrain 

from abusing the sender as opposed to abusing the message? 

Instead of political poisoning in our much beloved class chat, we can show the other world 

which dominates us, that in spite of our differences, range (or lack thereof) of opinions we 

can still be civil in the face of anonymities and screens. And that all those “professionals” 

we see shouting names at each other are anachronistic waste of a realist mode of power and 

we are structuralists who will (re)create a world of beauty instead of the world of muck. 

Now in response to GZA’s most recent statements. I have another non modest comment 

(did I even spell modest right? Who knows.) 

Even though punctuation and capitalization are “discursive patriarchy within a linguistic 

frame” certain frames are necessary for that harmonious life. . . such as, i.e., the guidelines of 

time. . . we go to class at a certain time, we tell others that we shall call at certain hours and 

darn it, surprisingly our favorite whatevers appear on the tube at set hours of the day. . . buses 

run, assignments end. 

Does it change the fact that time and time deadlines have been used as means to murder, 

exploitation, destruction and perpetration of hierarchies? No, certain conventions are standardized 

(with patronizing matter all the time such as masculinity “He” associated with the 

use of a general pronoun “One” as in “One should keep his words. . . ”) but once we come 

aware of such derisions is it necessary to do away with them? Or simply teach our children 

tolerance and respect, so that such things will simply be archaic throwbacks of an ignorant 

time. . . 

Do I give two turds whether or not you punctuate your email. . . no. . . but to say it is to 

avoid recreating those patronizing thingies we talked about earlier seems misplaced. Focus 

that sharp mind of yours on targets more worthy of its aim. And don’t be surprised that you 

might have angered many with comments of destruction and despair wished on an entire 

populace. 


The other portion which so much steam has been raised is obviously the comment about 

the third world. While the US is the world largest arms dealer (more than the next 9 countries 

combines) and we certainly do not believe that the arms in the hands of the many oppressive 

states that we have provided them to, i.e., Kenya and Somalia (and then we switched who we 

dealt to when they switched sides in the cold war), the Contras, the Iraqis to fight the Iranians 

who we undoubtedly supported too. Osama enjoyed our patronage for ages before we left 

him and his mujahadeen out to dry. And he turned on us. Like so many others and we often 

hear people ask “Why do they hate us so?” Because we perpetuate a system (not created by 

us) but certainly loved by us as our actions clearly state. But I would not visit the sins of the 

fathers on the children anymore than I would blame Hans for Nazism in Germany. (Which 

is completely and totally his fault by the by and therefore this whole argument is screwed :D 

) 

So seriously. Many reasons abound for many evil things in the world, but the eye for an 

eye thing, as that guy in the funny pajamas once said “makes the entire world blind”. . . .and 

that much angrier and nastier for our loved ones, be they everyone who breathes our wonderful 

air, and basks in our radiant sunsets. Wish peace upon them, and peace shall be. Wish 

death and destruction and with our thoughts we shall create a world Dante couldn’t even 

fathom. 

Choice. From Declaration shall we be free. 


[349] Pete: Re: to adamwest and jingles. The people of New Orleans were aware of the 

danger in living in that bowl. Because of the poverty many had no choice but to stay were 

they were. Most family’s have lived through generations of poverty. They did the best they 

could with what they had. Katrina had no class distinction but devastated equally. 


[350] Thugtorious: Sweet Booze, Constructive yet Provocative Discussion, et al. Ah 

yes, the beautiful discussion board. I so patiently waited to arrive at my desk this morning 

to see my packed “in-box.” Before this course, I only received mundane emails about what 

to do and where to be at what time. Now, I feel as if people really want to talk to me (even 

if only for a grade). So, instead of starting the week off with being extremely productive, I 

am going to waste at least 2 hours of my time (being paid all the while) reading, thinking, 

digesting, and responding to many of the great comments, ideas, and answers from my 

Marxist-to-be counterparts (maybe I had it wrong, laziness could be a character flaw, one of 

which I embrace to the fullest; yet I digress, back to the class). 

Sweet Booze, nectar of the gods, the working man’s salvation from the drudgery of the 

work week. Okay, in all seriousness, Mr. Shurtleff is trying to put out a fire by taking the 

matches away from a 10 year old. If that kid wants to see fire, by God there will be fire. It 

is unfortunate that with so many different things in our society (sex, drugs, and rock & roll), 

our “leaders” tell us not to do it, take it away, and slap our hands instead of telling us why it 

is bad and giving us play-doh instead. This argument is cliché and played out, and honestly 

I don’t even know if the alternative education would actually even work. But, the status quo 

has been empirically proven to not be effective (ie, my first drink was at 15 :-)) Also, I didn’t 

know that they took a survey of 18 to 19 year old girls as their chosen methodology, and


that was the basis of this policy. Any student of economics, statistics, and almost all social 

sciences should know that depending on the questions, how they are asked, etc. the results 

can be skewed either way: 1) Which do you like: beer or raspberries? Damn it, they drink 

wine coolers! Ban Them!! 

And, on a completely different note, I completely agree with Robgodfell! That is what I 

was trying to say when I brought about the “market place of ideas,” but let’s face it, Robgodfell 

is a hell-of-a lot better writer than me! I call it as I see it. Good job on the presentation 

of those ideas. However, I still take credit for the subject, but not the writing ;-) 

And, now, I shall work!! 


[351] Thugtorious: Marx vs. Capitalism. RE: 332: “Is Marx actually against capitalism 

or just the effects of it? In my opinion capitalism is making a profit, and by no means is that 

by exploitation or alienation of any kind, but Marx focuses on that.” –Keltose 

Unfortunately, making profit is exploitation and leads to alienation, plain and simple (at 

least in the Marxian framework). We are slowly progressing through the immense and detailed 

ideas of Marx, but we will eventually see that the only way for one to generate a profit 

is to pay laborers less than they are creating (surplus value). Technology and other capital 

does not “create” new value because it is merely labor from the past (already congealed labor); 

ie, capital is a commodity of sorts: it was created to be sold to another capitalist as a 

means of production. 

As for defining our society in a different way: many economists have done it ranging 

from the monetarists, to classicals, neo-classicals, Keynesians, neo-keynsians, even transformations 

of Marx (socialists, Fabian Socialists, Maoist Communists, etc). 


[352] PAE: World Domination. I think the United States has basically reached the height 

of its power and will maintain this for at least a few more decades. The biggest difference 

between the superpowers mentioned in the question (English, China, Mongols, Ottoman) is 

that their power came through sheer violence whereas our power has come through economic 

means. We have become a Super through inventing more and also utilizing our natural 

resources better than any other country in the history of the world. It is the fact that we have 

been so dominant as an economic power that we could not just be overthrown or taken out of 

power suddenly because we are so involved in international trading. If we were to suddenly 

fall other countries would go down with us, and they know it. 

Since the United States was formed (I’m talking about after we screwed over the Indians) 

the U.S. has not pursued war as a means to gain any more land to increase our international 

standing. I’m not saying we have been a peaceful nation for the past 200 years but the wars 

we have been involved in have not been in the pursuit of world dominance. 


[353] Danske: I don’t think that criticism will slow GZA down. You are right that 

we need to show respect for a person voicing a stong opinion. If we do not agree we must 

voice our own opinions. That is one of the advantages of our “exploitive” system. The U.S. 

has lived through numerous incidents that would have toppled many other social structures 


into total anarchy. We don’t have to agree, but we should appreciate and acknowledge the 

benefits we enjoy and what was required to give them to us. 


[354] Thelonius: Respect GZA? To whom it may concern- 

Mr. Gza wants to turn my sweet ’ol Grandmummy’s living room into a central Columbian 

Guerilla command center. Mr. Gza is a bad person and ought to be shipped via Fed Ex 

ground to an all expenses paid vactaion in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. There he can spend 

his leisure time reading all the Communist Manifesto, Mein Kampf and Harry Potter that 

he(she?) wants. If you don’t think that is the respectful way to regard a persons addiction to 

Nihilistic mental masturbation, than you can just “peace”-out, Capiche? 


[355] Thelonius: Marx vs. Capitalism. Re: 332: It seems that you are focusing on 

the ideal form of the free market, which our current administration uses very much in the 

propaganda form. American capitalism chokes the free market, and is perfectly liable to 

recieve the very criticisms that ’ol Karl Marx presupposed all those years ago...but who 

cares, I bought an ipod from Wal-mart made in Malaysia! 


[356] Thelonius: Caring for the elderly in a capitalist society. Re: 315: SueGirl- 

Cool topic, tough one. I think it just to say that our cultural make-up has more interest 

in the “capital” or “human-capital” than it does in “social-capital”. Our world...(i see it 

more like “their world”) has little interest in an individual unless there are dollars being 

exchanged. It’s a shit program in my book ’o programs...we are born into business, are 

schooled in business, work and die in a business. You try and die without someone having 

to pay someone. It’s against the law. Hmmm....U.S....A. 


[357] Thelonius: Fulfillment. Re: 318: Y’all- 

Nice job on getting to the point...feel the paradigm shift? Don’t leave it school when you 

Graduate. For more on Consumption and Consp.-Consumption in particular...see Prof. Alan 

Sandomir’s Foundations of Business thought text and/or course. He discusses at length how 

plenty of philosphical and social behavior exploration has linked Consumption patterns to 

the theory of cultural compensation. in short...don’t feel like you have a structured place of 

cultural identity, or importance? Buy a Cadillac. 


[358] Gza: name GZA. i capitalize “GZA” because its not my name, i borrowed it from 

GZA who capitalizes it, i don’t want to change the name he invented. 


[359] Michael: The Mid-Term Exam. Hello Everybody, 

I want to remind you that the first exam is scheduled as follows: 

Evening session: Sept. 29th–a week from this Thursday 

Day session: Oct. 3rd–two weeks from today (Monday) 

The material on which you will write will be provided for you; it provides a carbon copy 

for yourself (because you’re able to resubmit) and another copy for me.


Michael 


[360] Gza: T. what the ... are you talking about? i should be able to say and express 

myself in any i want “legally” (as long as it harms no other person). now when the time 

come and there is no law that can enforce elitist agendas i will gladly turn “my” house into 

a “command center” if needs be. however, that is quite an ASSumption you make based on 

my comments concerning your grandmother. i never once suggested that individuals do not 

matter or advocated anything in “mein kampf”. you make a total nonsensical leap of “bad 

faith”. maybe you should lay off the personal attacks and stay with the issues at hand before 

you make other bad ASSupmtions. “word is born”, right? 


[361] Thugtorious: Nihilism: use it in a sentence. I had a definition of “nihilism” (of 

which I owe to the Big Lebowski). However, I did not know that nihilism was also a type 

of anarchy, or destruction of an unjust society in an attempt to reconstruct a just one; and, 

also a disbelief in an objective truth, plus some other interesting definitions. Thanks for the 

addition to my vocabulary. I also learned two other new words via the Annotations, but I 

already forgot them. I am going to have to go find them again so I can use them in a sentence 

today. :-) 


[362] Adamwest: The Mid-Term Exam (resubmission). I was wondering how the 

resubmission would work with exam. I didn’t see any info in the syllabus about it but I 

could have missed it. Thanks. 


[364] Stretch: syllabus. is there a copy of the syllabus online somewhere? 


[366] Nazgul: Thelonius and GZA. Thanks for providing me with some comic relief 

while I am at work today, I have thoroughly enjoyed both of your postings! 


[368] Gza: what...patriotic. hey check it, it only makes sense that given that resources 

and wealth is finite and that the first world (such as the u.s.) consumes and controls the 

majority of the worlds resources and through trade policies and embargoes that this phenomenon/economic 

warfare creates the third world. i am not the only one that sees this, 

chomskey, hooks, and others observe the same genocide. 

as for capitalism, it has become so synonymous with democracy that anyone that challenges 

or questions capitalistic practices, is now unamerican, unpatriotic, and “evil”. its bull, 

we can see it in news coverage, prisons, wage differential, and the fact that many third world 

countries have enough resources to provide for their people but because of u.s. trade policies 

they are forced into exporting cheap goods in exchange for expensive and commonly unnecessary 

goods that keep their people poor and dependent and the major source of cheep labor 

for first world corporations. the lines between corporations and government is so blurred 

that it is now hard to distinguish between the two. that is a problem. 


[371] Thelonius: “T”. Re: [360]: Mr/Mrs Gza, or to whom it may concern... 


In regards to my statements and the reply of this captivating personality “mr. GZA (CAP- 

ITALS, Capitalism, Das Kapital=Mein Kampf, sorry Fidel you’re not fooling anybody...)” I 

need only to repeat myself...“Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.” 

You just stay away from my grandmother, little children and furry little animals. 

T 

P.S. That’s Mr. T to you GZA.... 


[373] Dange: Sweet Booze. I agree with both Nazgul and Cdew regarding taking the 

“sweet booze” out of grocery stores. I don’t think it will stop teenage girls from drinking 

any less then they would have, and all it does is force me to take two trips on my Friday 

night! One for food, one to the L-Store. 

I was also very peeved that this was the “breaking news”!! Give me a break, just let us 

drink! Sometimes I feel like Utah wants to make it as hard as possible for me to drink. I’m 

a good person, I just want a drink okay?! 

Message [373] referenced by [376]. Next Message by Dange is [525]. 

[375] Ernesto: Respect GZA? Re: [354]: If Thelonius knows anything about the communist 

manifesto or communism it should be that Mein Kampf has no affiliation. Before 

you link this two ideas, you should understand the purpose of both of them. Hitler was a 

nationalist and fascist. You can’t associate that with communism directly. 


[376] Overlord: Sweet Booze. Re: [373]: The biggest issue here is the fact that our 

leaders are trying to impose lifestyle type laws on us. I guarantee one guy in the top ranks 

of government had his daughter get knocked up while she had been drinking Bacardi Ras. 

Now the “sweet booze” is in question instead of his parenting skills (or lack there of). Now 

everyone has to pay for his and his daughters mistakes. The fact that we have to go to State 

liquor stores is a joke. Most of our liquor laws are a joke. If I am headed out for the night to 

get drunk, I am getting drunk. It may take 10 trips to the bar but I am getting drunk. Same 

goes for these girls that are drinking the “sweet booze” If you take that from them they will 

end up drinking hard liquor. They will get drunk with or without the sweet stuff. 

The fact that it was shown as “Breaking News” is also a joke. If you notice when we have 

major news like 9-11, Katrina, Iraq, etc. the news will always throw in some random news 

story to pull a blinder over our face. They do it so we spend our time thinking about how 

dumb that story was instead of what really matters. 


[377] Gza: Clueless. “T” [371], you have no clue what the hell you are talking about! 

to associate mein kampf with a criticism of capitalist “democracy”/marxism of the u.s. is 

no way related in their implications or conclusions. you seem to be dogmatic to most of the 

issues surrounding your government and economy. it is ironic that someone as “unpatriotic” 

as me seems to “care” more about the issues surrounding the problems that threaten “democracy” 

than someone like you that really “likes” “america”. i find that interesting. maybe you 

are just highly selective of what you choose to pay attention to and ignore the things that


conflict with your expectations. you are the locus of ironic pragmatism. Rorty would be 

proud of you. 


[378] Thugtorious: YES!! Go GZA and Thelonius: Round 2. Mein Kampf, grandmothers, 

furry little animals, ironic pragmatism . . . God I Love the First Amendment!!!!!! 


[379] Gutter: RE: “Sweet Booze”. I would like to share my two bits about the “issue” 

of taking wine coolers out of grocery stores. I agree with all my boozing buddies. The only 

effect this will have is that those who want it will get it somewhere else. In actuality I don’t 

drink. I haven’t had a drink since I was 18. Just the same, however, I will not condemn those 

who do, nor do I think it fair to keep coming down on those who do drink because of a few 

knuckleheads screwed it up for everyone else. By the way, anyone need a designated driver? 


[380] McDugall: Sweet-Booz. I think a more important issue than the fact that some 

politician wanting to remove spiritous beverages from grocery stores, is the fact that the 

government is trying to restrict our freedoms. It is this same government that has said for 

some time now we are going to iraq to save people from an opressive dictator. The same 

institution we are trying to topple is similar to what is happening and growing within our 

borders right now. 

I hope the politician has the interests of the public in mind when making such suggestions. 

However, we are a free society and we must be responsible for our actions. If someone 

does something to hurt another person, then the government should act. Otherwise the government 

should remain neutral and encourage less individual “destructive” behavior. And 

out of curiosity, for a government that encourages corporate welfare, big business, and free 

enterprise, why not allow liquor sales to take place outside a state store and allow free enterprise 

to lower the price of alcohol. There is too much hypocrisy today, its about time we ask 

for concise non-politically spun answers. 

Just my two cents. 


[381] Thelonius: GZA, Toilets and America... Yeoow... 

Ernesto an to all who give a damn, you sure got me (foot-in-mouth). I....must confess on 

my broken legs that I aint never read no communist manifestation ’o nothin. All i’m saying 

is that bringin down America n’makin it lots like Uraguay an Indichina, ’n places like that 

where they got only one brand ’o toothpaste an no film houses with pretty movie actors an 

actresses to admire seems kinda silly seein how nice and clean we live here an all. I mean 

why go an shit on the floor, when yer grandpa was good’nuff to install a nice modern water 

closet fer you and yer family, that’s all i’m sayin? Further more......why go so far as to tear 

the toilet out an’ start shittin on the floor, when 1st of all it’s already there anyway (yeah, so 

it was made in Oaxaca by naked 5year old Orphans, I don’t like it either), and 2nd the people 

who’re livin right next door to the Orphanage toilet factory are savin up to put in a toilet of 

their own. That’s what America is about, to me...havin a good toilet and lots of people all 

over the world, including Uraguay an indichina want em. I am pretty darn sure that even Mr. 

Che Guevara and all the members of one of my favorite bands, Rage Against the Machine, 


would also approve of clean toilets. So, I won’t apologze. If Mr. GZA wants to tear out his 

toilet and shit on the floor, than that his God-given American Prerogative...even though it’s 

silly. But he should leave my Grandmums toilet be. 


[382] Karlwho: Re: sweet booz. I am not a drinker, but I do feel that those who want 

to drink should have the choice. I have two thoughts. One, that some of the blame be 

upon those who complain about the politicans because we have all voted those politicians 

in. Second, that the politicians are not trying to restrict our freedoms, but rather restrict the 

negative consequences of a fews actions - which have ruined it for the rest of us. 

Message [382] referenced by [383]. Next Message by Karlwho is [401]. 

[383] Overlord: Re: sweet booz. [382]: The blame can be placed on those that have 

voted in our current politicians. I for one didn’t vote for many of our current leaders. So yes 

I do agree with that statement and I am guilty of not thinking of that first. 

You are also right that they are not trying to restrict our freedoms. They are just trying 

to make laws that will force us to live in a world that THEY feel is right and just by taking 

away those things that THEY don’t like. Specifically in this state. Now don’t be like most 

current Americans and say “Well if you don’t like it get out”. I don’t like the current liquor 

laws but other than that I can’t complain much about Utah. It is a great place. But I sure as 

hell don’t want to pay an even bigger tax on every day beverages like Doc’s and Bacardi just 

because some survey of 18-19 year old girls said they like those specific drinks. As I stated 

earlier, they will drink no matter what it is or where it is sold. 

Besides this a mute point. The biggest issue here is the fact that the news made it such 

a big thing. We are doing exactly what they expected us to do. We went and made it a big 

issue and it has distracted us from the major issues at hand. I will ask: Would you rather 

talk about low alcohol content Drinks that girls like, or Katrina Victims, or War news? I 

ask this because how will this issue cause us any harm? It won’t. It really doesn’t matter at 

all. Booze is booze and kids always have and will continue to drink it. In what ever form 

it comes in. Hell they had to make it themselves for a while there. So I dare them to do 

something. I will be in my basement making Whiskey..... Every one is invited. So please 

lets focus on more important issues. We all know Utah is quite conservative and we all know 

that our liquors law suck. They will most likely get worse. I will do my part by voting for 

those people I believe in. I ask every one to do the same. 


[384] Thugtorious: Supreme Court. It is true that the talk about local liquor laws detracts 

away from serious news/discussion about the War, Katrina, and other political/social/national/in 

events. However, we have a monumental time approaching the United States. With the recent 

death of Chief Justice Rehnquist and the retirement of Justice O’Connor, the highest 

court of this land could be facing a paradigm shift and an overall restructuring of its dynamics. 

Judge Roberts stands right now as the successor to Rehnquist. Does anybody support/not 

support this nomination? What are people’s views on the recent Eminent Domain decision 

from back east (the government is within its constitutional rights if it ceases property from a 

private citizen if that property stands to be used in a more economically efficient/profitable 

manner)? Does anybody think that the next two appointments could signify a shift further 

right by the court? What about the affect on the always controversial abortion situation?



[385] Jingle: Re: Sweet Booze. RE: [376]: I agree that a lot of utah liquor laws are 

ridiculous. I can’t drink alcohol because I have a heart condition, but I feel that it is the 

individuals right if they want to go out and drink alcohol let them. I feel that the state should 

let us be individuals and let us drink alcohol when we want to drink alcohol. I don’t like the 

idea of a state liquor store. The state liquor store is hardly never open, they are worse than a 

bank. 


[386] Ernesto: GZA, Toilets and America... Re: [381]: How can one of your favorite 

bands be Rage, when they are strong supporters of anti-establishment and American foreign 

policy? 


[387] ADHH: Pledge Unconstitutional? I was wondering what your reaction was to 

the federal court ruling that the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance in public schools is 

unconstitutional. Do you agree or disagree? My main thought on this issue: why is it that 

the few are ruling the many? 

In regards to unnecessary Utah laws, the one that bugs me the most is the mandatory 

seat-belt law that Karen Hale is trying to get through the legislature. I’m all for safety, don’t 

get me wrong, but why can’t a person have the opportunity to choose if they want to use seat 

belts or not. Things like that drive me crazy. 


[388] McDugall: Pledge Unconstitutional? I’m curious as to why the courts are allowing 

these time wasting cases to enter the system. There are much more important cases that need 

to heard and given due process. 

Regards to the seat belt law, its intended to protect the “careless” for lack of a better word 

and to minimize causalities and reduce health care expenditures. 


[389] Keltose: Pledge Unconstitutional? Re: [388]: I think that if someone has a 

problem with the pledge then they should burn their money since it has god written on it. If 

you don’t like the pledge, don’t say it, or get out. This is america. 

http://www.grassfire.org/14/petition.asp?PID=3D5984197 

As for the seatbelts...my job enables me to work very closely with UHP, have you ever 

had to go out and scrape someone off the asphalt? It makes sense. I mean if everyone just 

wore their seat belts it would makes things easier. No one is trying to take away rights, just 

prolong overall life of society. 


[390] Hans: Reminder. This is a reminder that everyone has to have two regular homework 

submissions in before the first midterm. Your second submission has to be done by 

this Sunday, Sep 25 (or, strictly speaking, Monday morning at 3 am, Sep 26). 

I am working on a pdf version of the archives. A preliminary version is at 

http://marx.economics.utah.edu/das-kapital/pdf/screen/2005fa.pdf 


Hans. 


[392] Jingle: RE: Pledge Unconstitutional? I agree with keltose and McDugall, the 

federal court is wasting their time on something that doesn’t matter. I always thought that 

if you said the Pledge of Allegiance in school, you were showing your patriotism to our 

country. I feel that the federal court have to complain about something that involves the 

Pledge. First they complain about the word “god” in the pledge and know they claim the 

pledge to be unconstitutional. When they were complaining about the word “god” in the 

pledge, I lost it because they want to take “god” out of the pledge when every dollar bill has 

“In God We Trust” on it. We see the word “god” everyday, so I don’t know why it is a big 

problem to have it in the Pledge. I believe that the word “god” is the real reason that they 

named the pledge unconstitutional. If they complain about the pledge being unconstitutional, 

than our currency is unconstitutional as well. 

I feel that seat belt laws are very important. Seat belt laws do reduce the severity of 

injuries and deaths. These seatbelt laws will also help innocent children. Their parents will 

have to buckle them up if they don’t want to pay the fine. Not everyone will like the laws, 

Just like not everyone like the speed limit laws; we just have to live with them. 


[393] ADHH: Seat belts. I am not trying to say that seat belts don’t save lives. I am 

sure we have all seen the horror of a bad car accident. Even after seeing the carnage, if I 

choose not to wear my seat belt, then as an adult, I shouldn’t have to. Smoking is dangerous 

but there aren’t any laws that stop adults from making the decision to do so. Helmets are 

suggested but not manditory for bike riders. There are lots of dangerous activities that people 

engage in. What right does the Utah Legislature have to tell me that I have to wear a seat 

belt? 

Message [393] referenced by [397]. Next Message by ADHH is [472]. 

[396] Daleman: Supreme Court. Filling the two open seats most definitely could signify 

a shift to right. However although Roberts has been criticized for his Conservative views, he 

did do some pro bono work for the gay community some time ago. 

Whoever fills the 2nd seat could represent a serious shift to the right 


[397] Bboarder: Seat belts. Re: [393]: I completely agree with you ADHH, maybe it’s 

because I just got a ticket for not wearing my seat belt, but I think an adult should be able to 

decided whether they want to wear their seat belt or not.. As an adult we are all responsible 

for the decision that we make and if choose not to wear my seat belt, and if I am hurt I will 

have to live with that decision. 


[403] Danske: 397. I agree that this seems to be a choice we should be able to make on 

our own. However sometimes our choice may impact someone else. This could be others 

in the car with you, emergency personnel, family and friends. I do object to legislation 

requiring seatbelt use because it is nearly impossible to enforce. Educating would be far 

more productive and effective. 

Next Message by Danske is [406].


[404] Overlord: Re: Pledge Unconstitutional? [389]: Ahh my favorite. The “Love 

it or leave it” statement. I do agree that some people go overboard while exercising their 

rights, but who am I to say that they can not speak their mind. Our country has given all of 

it citizens the right to free speech. I don’t think people should be so petty as to make it so 

others can not participate in this tradition but again that is their right as an American. So if 

some one doesn’t agree with the wording of a tradition pledge then they should speak up. 


[405] Geo: GEO: John Roberts, Seat Belt Laws etc.... I believe this is a good time two 

chime in for the discussion forum. It is the first time I have actually heard some intelligent 

discussion. Concerning the nomination of John Roberts to fill the vacancy in the supreme 

court and seat belt laws, I believe both represent in some form or another how america is 

changing. I listened to a good portion of the congressional hearings for john roberts and was 

very impressed. After hearing all the media hype about democratic opposition I expected 

something different from what took place. Even many of the democrats had high praise for 

Judge Roberts. Whether he is ‘right wing’ or not he supports the law and previous supreme 

court rulings. So even if he may personally disagree with many issues he is still going to 

uphold the law. Yes, that includes roe v. wade. It is impossible for any individual to be bias 

free but listening to him defend himself, he seemed pretty close. Whether he is nominated 

or not, I do not believe that the supreme court is going through a “paradigm shift.” That 

has already happened with earlier judges and ealier court rulings stepping outside of their 

judicial capacity and step into a legislative role. This is what is concerning. If you are a 

fan of Sandra Day O’Connor maybe you should reconsider her legitmacy as a Judge who is 

supposed to interpret the law and not make them. Judge Roberts seems to understand this 

concept far better than some of the recent supreme court justices. 

As for seat belt laws, I in some way I do understand them because people are jackasses 

and aren’t smart enough to make basic safety decisions for themselves or their families, and 

violent accidents impose serious social consequences (clean up costs, extra medical costs, 

larger traffic jams when their is an accident, etc.....). But in terms of what authority the government 

has and shouldn’t have, this is one of them. People have been hurting themselves 

for years and no one cares. Helmet laws and seatbelt laws intefere with basic human freedom. 

If our supreme court can rule that an abortion for hell’s sake is constitutionally sound 

than we can sure as hell make our own decision about wearing a seatbelt or not without 

having to pay a fine. I am not a conservative but this and the eminent domain ruling seem to 

be a signal that we are handing over to much freedom to our governing powers. Do I believe 

these two decisions alone will have a significant impact on american freedom, not much, but 

they are opening a door to new government powers that could undermine further freedoms 

in the future. 

Thanks, Geo 


[406] Danske: Well put. Thanks for articulating the situation so well in [405]. 


[408] Thugtorious: Re: Pledge Unconstitutional? RE: [404]: The Pledge, the word 

“God”, the Ten Commandments, and a lot of other dogmatic concepts are an incredibly 

interesting part of law. When considering, for instance, the Pledge of Allegiance (since that 


is the topic of this discussion), there are two fundamental classifications of freedoms at play: 

the freedom to, and the freedom from. It is of my understanding and interpretation that a lot 

of these discussions are focused on the freedom to say the pledge of allegiance (ie, if you 

don’t want to, you can leave, etc.). However, the focus shouldn’t be on those that want to 

say the pledge but moreso on those individuals who, while in the classroom, are forced to 

regurgitate a dogmatic oath that they don’t believe in nor do they find pleasant (the freedom 

from doing so). While these students are essentially “forced” to be in school, they should 

not be forced to do things that are outside of or beyond there own religious beliefs. I haven’t 

read the new ruling on the Pledge, nor do I claim to be a legal scholar, but I do think that 

the decision probably focused upon the Anti-Establishment clause of the first amendment 

(rightly so, I might add). Students should not be forced to recite a dogmatic appeal to their 

nation and some “God” that they might not believe in. As for the “all money has God on 

it, burn it!” claim: students are not forced to sit in a class room and dissect, analyze, and 

overall comprehend the “who, what, why, how, and when” of that dollar. 

On a completely different note: If the constitution and its applicability to students appeals 

to you, look for a book called “We the Students.” Its author (of whose name I forgot at the 

moment) looks at fundmental cases of students rights and how they affect students today. 

Unfortunately, most of the cases affect K-12, but there are a few that include Univ. of Cal 

Berkley, etc. 


[411] Rudy: Mid-term exam. Can those registered in for one session take the exam in a 

different session? 


[415] Michael: Rules for Switching Sessions on the Exams. Hello Everyone 

Rudy asked: 

Can those registered in for one session take the exam in a different session? 

Yes, but there are restrictions. The evening session takes the mid-term first and the final 

last. If you are in the evening section and want to take the exam Monday, then you’ll have 

to take the final exam with the evening section (that is, first). If you’re registered for the day 

session and want to take the mid-term with the evening session, that’s OK, and you’ll be able 

to take the final with either section. It’s also OK for those registered in the evening session 

to take the final in either section, provided (and only in the case) they took the mid-term 

with the evening session. Lastly, If you belong to the morning session and want to take the 

final with the evening session, then you’ll also have to take the mid-term with the evening 

session. So, the rule that’s being used here is that you can’t take both the exams at the latter 

of the times they are given. This is just a restatement of what Hans says on page 1381 in the 

syllabus. 

Michael 


[417] Rudy: Archive. This is the location of the archive for whoever was looking for it. 

http://marx.economics.utah.edu/das-kapital/2005fa/message.html



[423] DarkKnight: More on seatbelts. This issue always strikes a nerve with me. I get 

tired of politicians trying to legislate safety/security. If I am qualified to vote them in or 

out of office, then I am qualified to make my own decisions about whether or not to wear a 

seatbelt. I think they are trying to do away with Darwinism at the same time they revere it in 

school curriculum. If you are ejected from the car in a collision, then you are concurrently 

ejected from the gene pool. Survival of the fittest/smartest. I’ll take it a step further and say 

I am lukewarm on child seatbelt and car seat laws. Let parents choose how to raise their 

kids. I don’t need Uncle Sam as a backseat driver telling me how to protect myself and my 

loved ones from injury. Here’s a specific example of the inanity that exists on this issue: my 

sister recently had her fifth child. The hospital had two regulations that irked me. 1) You are 

required to bring a car seat before they will let you take the baby home. 2) The nurse has to 

be the one to put the baby in the car seat. Surely my sister and brother-in-law are capable 

of that task. After all, they have been putting kids in car seats for years. Who’s to say the 

nurse is better? She didn’t even buckle my niece in. What’s the point? I probably would 

have slapped her if she’d tried to take my newborn baby and place her in the car seat. That’s 

my job. By the way, I ALWAYS wear my seatbelt, just not because I am required to do so. 


[428] Overlord: More on seatbelts. Just a few comments about DarkKnight’s words 

[423] You are qualified to vote to put decision makers in office. They make laws while they 

are in office because you gave them that power by voting them in. So DEAL WITH IT. I see 

no problem with law makers trying to preserve human life. Not to mention Insurance prices 

tend to rise with out laws like these. People get hurt and spend months in the hospital when 

they could have worn their seatbelt and avoided a lot of pain. 

About the hospital issue. If I have intrusted the life of my newborn to a certain hospital 

I think I could live with a policy that requires the nurse to put the child in the seat. The 

hospital is most likely following some law that was put in place by the person you voted for. 


[429] Thugtorious: More on seatbelts. The “Darwinistic” analysis and the liberterian 

approach that many are taking with this argument has some assumptions that need to be 

looked at. We are all college students, therefore we can assume that most of us are above 

the 50th percentile on the good ole’ IQ bell curve. However, there is a lot of the population 

that is not as “bright” as those engaged in this conversation. Further, even for those more 

intelligent people, even if your mom said “don’t touch the stove, it is hot” (kind of like 

legislating seat belt laws), some of us still had to touch it to find out. The legislation of laws 

such as seat belt laws tries to eleminate the two problems posed by the previous examples. 

For one, some people may not know that a shoulder restraint may prevent head trauma 

and other health problems in a fender-bender. And, there are those among us who won’t 

change their ways unless a horrific accident happened to them. These laws presuppose these 

situations and attempt to alleviate them in order to reduce insurance costs, highways costs, 

public safety costs, etc. 

And, honestly, how hard is it to buckle that belt up while driving?!? Your body is not 

going to physically move around while you are driving, so why not buckle up? And, if you 

don’t like wearing seat belts, ride Trax!! 



[431] Robgodfell: Seatbelts and Economics. Do we believe that hospitals should treat 

emergency patients without immediately checking whether or not they have insurance and/or 

were wearing a seat belt/motorcycle helmet? 

I think that most of us have placed a premium on human life and our collective answer 

would be yes, treat the poor shmuck who’s had his head cracked please...don’t check. . . fix 

’em. That’s your job, the hospital, the doctor, you’re human mechanics on the mend. 

But your life saving work isn’t free. 

And if we can reduce the cost and time that it takes for each emergency case because of 

simple pre-precautions like buckling up or wearing a helmet, we can better serve the majority 

of the people; who might otherwise loose life or limb because they had the misfortune of 

coming in behind another individual who wasn’t protecting his own. . . 

– The Thought manifests as the Word; the Word manifests as the deed. The Deed develops 

into Habit; and Habit hardens into Character. So watch the Thought and its ways with care, 

and let it spring from Love. Born out of concern for all beings... The Shadow follows the 

body and never leaves it. In the same way, as we think, so we become. 


[432] Thugtorious: Good Ole’ Rocky! I gotta give a hand to Mayor Rocky Anderson for 

standing up in the face of extreme adversity and opposition. In my eyes, he seems to be one 

of a select few of truly dynamic and progressive politicians left in this country. However, 

I know that many disagree with his maverick-esque style in initiating policy changes, and 

strongly disagree with his recent executive order extending insurance rights to domestic 

partners of county employees. Sound off!! 


[433] Nazgul: Good Ole’ Rocky. Utah seems to be a state that for every two steps 

forward we take at least one-step back (or in some cases one step forward and two steps 

back), I hope the recent executive order signed by Rocky will not be one of these steps. The 

premise for which this bill is based is entirely in line with the values of our state and country, 

quoting Rocky it is a ’step toward equality. It’s a step toward respect and equal dignity in 

the workplace.’ Though the order is not without flaws, I strongly disagree with those who 

bash it based on moral issues. Rep. La Var Christensen of Draper is one of these individuals 

who is so focused on the ‘gay’ implications of the order and how the repercussions of it 

could damage the outstanding moral fiber of our great state that he is blinded to the good it 

provides. 

I have no problem with those who argue the bill based on the economic implications, 

because there is a cost involved. It is estimated that this will cost the city an additional 

$113,000 a year for health insurance, however, it is important to realize that this expense is 

offset by those individuals who are able to get off welfare because they are now eligible for 

benefits under their partner. 

I think it will be interesting to see how this plays out, especially in two years when it has 

the potential to be overturned. 

Message [433] referenced by [435]. Next Message by Nazgul is [452].


[434] Pete: re: Good ole’Rocky. Both Nazgul and Thugtorious bring up interesting 

points about economics and “partners”. 

I worked at American Express when they changed their policy to allow benefits to “partners” 

of employees. Yes the initial cost was great for the company and ultimately insurance 

premiums did go up. But in the long run the employee whose partner benefited from the 

change was very happy, did a better job and took off less time. 

Now let me tell you another true story...A man I know was living with a woman who did 

not have insurance so he claimed the “partner card” and got her insurance. Two months later 

she had a boob job done using the company’s insurance. So you can look at its benefits or 

lack there of in each situation. For me everybody needs insurance, everybody. 


[435] TriPod: Good Ole’ Rocky. I completely disagree with Nazgul [433]. My tax 

dollars should not contribute to someone’s Immoral Acts. Two Men or Two Women have 

the oppurtunity to get out and work, they most likley don’t have children. They need to get 

out and go to work and pay for their own Insurance not use my tax dollars. That $113,000 

is better used in the education system to pay teachers’ wages. 

I hope that this is all stop Screw Rocky Anderson 


[437] TriPod: Re: Good ole’Rocky. Re: [434]: I agree with Pete Everybody needs 

insurance but not on my tax dollars. Gays have proven health issues they are also more 

prone to longer and more expensive medical problems “Aids”. In the longer run it will 

increase the city’s insurance costs and raise my taxes. It shouldn’t happen. 

Message [437] referenced by [438], [439], and [440]. Next Message by TriPod is [442]. 

[438] Thugtorious: Re: Good ole’Rocky. RE: [437]: “Gays” and “AIDS”?!? Are we 

still in 1982? You can’t be serious with this “Salem Witch Trial” type pointing the finger! 

AIDS is a problem of sex, drug use, and other situation. It is not a problem of just “gays” (of 

which, I loved how you put quotes around it). Secondly, to say that a person who lives that 

lifestyle has “more expensive medical problems” (especially when contributed to an STI) 

than a person who has a straight lifestyle is absurd! I would much rather have people who 

consume mass quantities of fast food and do not exercise be barred from health insurance 

than someone that lives with somebody of their same gender; that would probably lead to 

a greater decrease in tax dollars being spent. Further, pigeon-holing this argument to mean 

same-sex couples is a travesty and does not do the order justice. I have an elderly couple 

living next to me. They have both lost their previous spouses, and do not find it necessary 

to get remarried but they love each other the same. Secondly, I have quite a few friends 

who are jaded by the thought of marriage and only see it as a business relationship, so they 

opt to live together and love each other without that piece of paper (by the way, that is all 

that a marriage is through the eye’s of the state disregarding any moral implications). It 

is not the government’s role to define morality within the context of marriage; that is the 

role of religion and churches! It is the role of the government to provide equality to all, 

and relegate the benefits and detriments of living in a society with each other. If two guys 

want to be married, let them file their taxes together for hell’s sake!! However, this does not 

mean that the church you choose to go to has to perform the ceremony! That is how this 


situation should be viewed, not vice-versa likes it is now! Morality should not be running 

our government, but Pragmatism should!! I have no idea where these two polar opposites 

got aligned within our government. 

There is no secular logical argument that can defend the negation of this order (and for 

that matter, that can defend Amendment 3). Or, let me rephrase that: I have yet to hear a 

coherent, concise, logical, secular argument that defends amendment 3 and the repeal of this 

Executive Order. I don’t remember who said it, but: ONE OF THE IDEALS THIS NATION 

IS FOUNDED UPON IS EQUALITY!! It is not your definition of equality, but a blind 

interpretation of all being equal!!!!! 


[439] MrPink: Re: Good ole’Rocky. Re: [437]: Hello, I would like to clarify one thing. 

“Partner” does not mean “Gay”. I have a domestic partner whom I am committed to but I 

heterosexual. Why should the government favor married couples? I think TriPod is short 

sighted by making this an issue about gays. 


[440] Overlord: Re: Good ole’Rocky. [437]: Oh TriPod you poor soul. This bill is not 

only going to be used by Homosexuals. There will be a lot of Heterosexual use as well. So it 

looks like your problem with this is the homosexuals. Try and pull your head out and form a 

logical opinion. To reply to another remark made by our friend TriPod. Why do you assume 

that these people don’t work? It is possible to work and not have benefits. My wife has a 40 

hour office position that offers not a drop of healthcare. If we decided not to get married she 

would have no benefits at all. 


[441] Thugtorious: Good Ole’ Rocky. I was just thinking of an analogy: is it better 

that 99 guilty people go free rather than sending 1 innocent person to jail? Well, under our 

criminal system and constitution, our nation believes that they would rather see 99 guilty 

people go free. 

This is much the same as it should be with “domestic partners” (thank you Mr.Pink for 

reminding me of this beautiful terminology). Just because 99 homosexual couples may be 

given the benefits that all you religious zealots . . . err . . . I mean married people receive 

does not mean that we should deny that one heterosexual couple benefits. 

I disagree with the methodology of this argument because it presupposses that there is 

something immoral about the homosexual couples (which is a completely different argument). 

However, even if you do believe this, you cannot deny the logic of this argument. It 

shouldn’t be about a prohibition on homosexuality, but about defending our neighbors who 

choose not to get married!! It is our heritage, legal foundation, and dynamics that dictate we 

defend the rights of the minorities (the one heterosexual couple) in the face of the majority. 

And yet, where we came from and what we stand for are so easily forgotten when somebody 

says “I’m Gay.” 


[442] TriPod: Re: Good ole’Rocky. To Thugtorious [438].


No it is 2005!! Come on you and I both know that AIDS is more prevalent with people 

who live the GAY life style (and by the way GAYS more often then not use drugs and alcohol 

to hide themselves and make it okay). 

To Mr. pink and Overlord I just have to say that it is my personal opinion that Rocky Is 

trying to change the rule to help People who live the GAY lifestyle. My tax dollars should 

never go to support that PERIOD!!! 

P.S. My business doesn’t offer Medical or dental benefits either but I still have coverage 

because I pay for them not other peoples tax dollar. 

Message [442] referenced by [443] and [444]. Next Message by TriPod is [446]. 

[443] Thugtorious: Re: Good ole’Rocky. RE: [442]: First off, using the word “gays” 

is a deragotory use of rhetoric to demean the subject. Secondly, you are asserting a very 

inflammatory (“flaming,” hahahaha, I made a funny, sorry, back to being serious) claim 

with no evidence: 1) AIDS is prevelant in the homosexual community, however it is just as 

prevelant amongst drug users and tribes of Africa. It is a problem of ignorance, not sexuality; 

2) to justify your moral stance and absurd assertions by saying that drug use and alcohol is 

more the rule than exception among that community is a gross overstatement and completely 

misdirected. Does it help you sleep at night to demonize these people that are abused by the 

society they live in up to the point that they don’t even feel comfortable in their own skin? 

Further, do you feel good about yourself because some young teenage person is driven to 

drugs and alcohol because they feel different than you and you demoralize them for who 

they naturally feel that they are? 

Again, I ask for a coherent, logically, concise, SECULAR argument that defends your 

position. This time, if you are going to make an assertion, back it up. Oh yeah, and Tripod, 

you forgot to address the issue about this being about all domestic partners, not just 

homosexual couples. 


[444] MrPink: Re: Good ole’Rocky. Re: [442]: I’m sitting here with my “domestic 

partner” (for whom I have cuter names)....who makes a good point. I know this might sound 

like I’m going off topic.... 

We have no children but bear the burden of paying taxes for education of large families. 

We do so because its our social responsibility and we want to educate the next generation. 

In the same regard, we would like all people in society to have the same access to affordable 

health care, even if it slightly increases our taxes. We both have affordable health care 

provided via our employers. 


[445] Thugtorious: Re: Good ole’Rocky. RE: [444]: Mr. Pink, 

Come on, enlighten us with some of these “cuter names”!! Hahahaha, Just kiddin’ ;-) 


[446] TriPod: Re: Good ole’Rocky. Re: [443]: Sorry, I ruffled your feathers This must 

really hit close to home for you. I won’t comment on it anymore 



[447] MrPink: Re: Good ole’Rocky. Re: [446]: Not sure who you are apologizing to 

but please don’t think I am offended (and I have a hard time believing that Thugtorious is 

ever offended). 


[448] Pete: RE:Good ole’ Rocky. Well... I can die a happy person, this is hope for the 

future and tolerance for different opinions. I’ve been married fr 37 years and that hasn’t been 

so great, maybe I should go to something else. Couples should have to be as unhappy as we 

married ones are! You all give me hope for a better tomorrow when “Gay” means happy, 

joyful! 


[449] Thugtorious: Re: Good ole’Rocky. RE: [447]: You know me sooooo well!! It’s 

all about the argument, baby!! Leave it all in the ring!! 


[450] TriPod: No need to apologize. I love to mess around and to antaganize people. 

Your bad A.... Thanks 


[451] Overlord: Re: Good ole’Rocky. [449]: I agree about the argument. Too bad. I 

love it when facts enter the argument. I was hoping for some numbers to back up opinions. 

I think this is the most fun I have had participating in a class. 

Oh and I have only been married for 1.5 years so the unhappy feeling hasn’t caught up to 

me yet. HA HA 


[452] Nazgul: Tripods comments. Tripod, you sure as hell antagonized me. Job well 

done. I was in the process of preparing a rousing rebuttal, but I think it might be overkill. 

Great comments from all. 


[454] COMMI: Seatbelts and Economics. Re: [431]: Hospitals have to treat people who 

do not have insurance who come through the emergency room. Hospitals have to follow a 

law called EMTALA (emergency medical treatment and active labor act) which says that 

they are have to treat everyone that walks through the doors. They can only ask about 

insurance after they are stable. 


[455] COMMI: Evidence for TRIPOD. Overlord asked for some stats on the subject 

at hand. The CDC shows that in 2003 23153 males contracted HIV. 14532 men contracted 

it from homosexual contact 62.7%. 3189 from drug use 13.77%. 1224 from homosexual 

contact and drug use 5.3%. Add that all up and 81.8% of all male HIV cases were caused 

by homosexuality and drugs. It is hard to argue with numbers like that. 

Message [455] referenced by [456], [457], and [458]. Next Message by COMMI is [463]. 

[456] MrPink: Evidence for TRIPOD. Re: [455]: Although men do dominate this 

epidemic I don’t think we should exclude women from the stats. 

http://hab.hrsa.gov/history/fact2005/women and hivaids.htm 

Next Message by MrPink is [475].


[457] Overlord: Evidence for TRIPOD. Re: [455]: Yeah you cant argue that at all. I 

was hoping tripod would have found that so we could have continued the argument. I looked 

up the same numbers a while back and it is quite surprising. But to say that this new order 

will be abused by these people really has no base. 

Anyway How about them Utes. Anyone going to the game? 


[458] McDugall: Evidence for TRIPOD. Re: [455]: Yes those are numbers. But honestly 

take a deeper look. Is their practice of homosexuality the cause of higher rate of aids? 

Or is their some other causality? All stats can be manipulated to prove a point. Prime example 

for “questionable” stats. The government continually reports that married people live 

longer than unwed people. Well, think about this, early childhood deaths are counted, which 

the children had no chance to marry. So when you factor in their young ages, the number is 

skewed. Also smoking rates are inflated because when a person dies, and they are a smoker, 

that can be listed as a cause of death even if the person died from, lets say food poison. Most 

importantly the disease does not discriminate, its prevalence among gays however recent 

the numbers are, are most likely shows signs of regression as the disease increases among 

heterosexuals. 

And secondly about benefits for domestic partners, since when it is anyones right to judge 

if someone is immoral or not. Not to debate the semantics of religion but as long as a person 

is honest, hardworking, and a good public servent(including lawful), they are moral. Don’t 

limit your mind to a book written some 2000 years ago. 

And if you do not want to pay for their benefits, I shouldn’t be forced to fund the primary 

school system because I don’t have children there. Look at the bigger picture, you are 

HELPING PEOPLE, isn’t that the GOAL of morality and religion? 

ponder that for a moment.... 

Bring on the flame emails. 


[459] Michael: Study Sessions for the Mid-Term. Hello Everyone, 

We’ll be having a study session this Saturday from 3:00 until 5:00 at the usual location 

(BuC 106). The plan is to go through the questions labled “Exam Question”, but hopefully 

we’ll have enough time to discuss the questions that were submitted as homework (which 

are also potential mid-term questions). Perhaps we can also meet Monday, but I’ll have to 

look into where we would be able to conduct the session. 

If you haven’t already, have a look at the homework archive. The benefit of this, over 

simply re-reading (right?) the submissions, is that for many of the entries in the archive you 

also have Hans’s comment on the student’s answer. 


[460] Ziggy: Evidence Against TRIPOD. That’s great to have something concrete to 

look at in [460], rather than merely someone’s claim. The statistical support is also being 

skewed by what is being ommitted. It’s not being mentioned that 13,260 people who contracted 

AIDS in 2003 were hetereosexual. So while yes, it’s true that more homosexual 

males contracted AIDS it is not fair to make claims that this is solely an issue among that 


populace, nor to make any more extreme extrapolations about how AIDS is a result of sin. 

Also, 1,877 of AIDS cases were contracted by male-to-male sexual contact AND injection 

use so making the claim that gays do drugs is also unsupported by these statistics. Yes, some 

of them do, just as some hetereosexuals do. But that is not the overwhelming trend. 

Here’s what I’m looking at if anyone wishes to verify: 

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/stats.htm#hivest 

Message [460] referenced by [460] and [463]. Next Message by Ziggy is [471]. 

[462] Robgodfell: Re: Seatbelts and Economics. Re: [454]: The devil is in the details. 

However, that wasn’t the point of the passage. 

It is whether or not in a situation in which we know that we can reduce cost and risk to 

other members of society by being “patronistic.” Do we then require such safety measures 

as seat belts and helmets? Great that we have an act that actually requires such service, then 

if we require it...do we not then find the methods to reduce total operating costs, and risk 

reduction for the majority? 

i.e. no helmet: tons of time and money in emergency care or helmet: reduced head 

trauma, higher percentage chance of living, and reduced time spent in the ER to be redirected 

to further life saving measures.. 


[463] COMMI: Re: Evidence for TRIPOD. Ziggy [460], 

I put those numbers up to show that homosexual men and drug use is the main cause of 

the AIDS exposure. According to the link you provided 920,566 adults have been exposed 

to AIDS. Male-to-male sexual contact, male drug use and male-to-male sexual contact and 

drug use counts for over 73% of all AIDS cases. When you add in female drug use this covers 

over 81% of all AIDS cases. That IS an overwhelming trend. I don’t think homosexual men 

get AIDS because it is a “sin”, but rather from unprotected sex with multiple partners. You 

can dispute homosexuality being moral or immoral. But can you dispute that it is stupid to 

have unprotected sex or share needles? They get it the same way the heterosexual men and 

women get it. 


[464] PAE: Re: Good Ole’ Rocky. RE: [435]: Who says Men with Men and Women with 

Women is immoral? I don’t think you, I, the state, or any church has the right to say what is 

moral in that respect. If a man and women is the only thing that is moral then I don’t want 

my tax dollars going to support any single parents in any way, they should go out and find 

another partner. 


[465] TriPod: Re: Good Ole’ Rocky. To PAE [464]: 

This is crazy. Most single Parents would love to be with another person (of the opposite 

sex). Most of the time they just can’t find someone. Or have had a bad experience so they 

do not want anybody yet. This is crazy. 

Message [465] referenced by [466]. Next Message by TriPod is [864].


[466] PAE: Re: Good Ole’ Rocky. I agree with [465]. I was trying to state I dont think 

the only moral situation a person can be in is marriage with a person of the opposite sex. 

Plus like I said who should decide what is moral when it comes to having a partner (opposite 

or same sex). 


[467] Thugtorious: Re: Good Ole’ Rocky. RE: [466]: Kind of stemming from what PAE 

said: is it more immoral (I guess in an ordinal, not cardinal sense) to have a bastard child 

and premarital sex, or is it more immoral to engage in homosexual relations? Or, is there 

a threshold of immorality that once broken it does not matter which one is more immoral 

because they are all the same beyond that point? Depending on your interpretation of this, 

a single parent could be equated to the same level of immorality as that of two-men/women 

living in “sin” together. Just a thought. 

On a complete side note: Everytime I engage in a conversation about sin, I think of 

Dante’s “Divine Comedy” and especially “The Inferno.” If you haven’t read it, or know 

nothing about it, the book is really quite interesting. There are different levels of sin, each 

one with its own peculiar eternal torture; kind of twisted but brilliantly written. Dante wrote 

in some of his enemies (and even friends) at different levels of Hell kind of as a cheap shot. 

I found that funny. Oh well, back to discussing the hell and damnation of homosexualtiy (I 

wonder where Dante would have put Interior Decorators?) 


[468] Xerho: Re: Good ’ole Rocky. I think there is a catch 22 with allowing health 

insurance rights to same-sex patners. Some say it will cost our tax-payers dollars, but there 

is a different angle. Under group health insurance, the state of Utah is a “guarenteed issue” 

state, meaning that groups must be taken by carriers, with a maximum rate up above street 

rate to 85%. By giving partners coverage under a group plan most of the time does not 

hurt the tax payer as allowing ANY person, gay or not gay, but healthy or not healthy, 

can raise the entire group’s rate to the 85%. Companies are required to contribute a large 

portion of their employee’s premiums, but not required to contribute anything at all to their 

employee’s dependants. Some companies choose to as an incentive. If individuals are not 

healthy enough to qualify for individual coverage (which about 50% of the people who apply 

for individual coverage are not), then they go on to the state-supplemented HIP (Health 

Insurance Pool) in which the state of Utah is dumping around $136 million a year. THAT is 

where your tax dollars are going reguardless of being gay or not. Unhealthy people cost us 

money. Putting gays on company plans certainly has it’s changes that will need to be made, 

but I think there is a larger issue at hand. The VAST majority of unhealthy people that are 

on HIP that cost us money. 


[470] Zone: More on Rocky. I think that Rocky is doing a great job by increasing equal 

rights between all people. And won’t state anymore on that because of all the other posts. 

But lets give three cheers for Rocky for assembling the Anti-Bush protest when he came 

to visit last month. At least someone in power is not afraid to speak their mind against the 

republican majority in Utah. 



[471] Ziggy: pulling out of Iraq. On that note, there’s an anti-war rally at the City County 

Building tomorrow at noon for those interested. Rocky is scheduled to speak at 12:55. The 

event is coordinated with the national rally held in DC. 

Next Message by Ziggy is [682]. 

[484] Aaron: What are the current questions assigned for submissions?? 9/24. 


[498] Pisciphiliac: Study Guide? Michael, 

You mentioned something about a study guide (or at least a collection of questions) that 

we could use to study for the test. Where can we get this and / or when can we expect this? 

Is this the “Econ 5080 Questions and Answers, Installment 1”? When will this be available? 

Thanks! 


[499] Michael: Location of the Study Guide. Everyone, 

Here’s the link to the HTML version of the archives: 

http://marx.economics.utah.edu/das-kapital/2005fa/ 

And here’s the link to the corresponding pdf file: 

http://marx.economics.utah.edu/das-kapital/2005fa/ec5080qa.pdf 

Michael 


[503] MarxSchmarx: Marx so far... I remember an earlier survey on the class discussion 

list regarding what was already known about Marxism, and what to expect. Now that we 

have officially ended the first section, maybe people can update us on their progress. 

For myself, the fog that was one a complete ignorance of Marxism is now lifting. I cannot 

confidently say that I understand everything that I read, but I definitely know more now than 

before this semester. 


[506] MrPink: Marx so far... Re: [503]: Hi MarxSchmarx 

I’m in the same boat. Prior to this class I had no exposure to Marx, other than what one 

would absorb from pop culture and the news. My understanding has been increasing as we 

progress through the course. I find some of the concepts difficult to accept but I think this is 

because I am used to thinking about economics in one way. 


[515] BBQ: Re: Marx so far... RE: [506]: For me, I have been surprised with how 

ignorant I was to Marxism as a whole. I have just switched my major to economics from 

the behavior science field and have never had in courses that dealt directly with Marx. This 

has definitely been a learning experience for me, but I have been surprised with how much 

I have enjoyed the new perspectives. It is easy to allow yourself to stay in one train of 

thought and never venture out. Marx definitely has shed new light on my understanding of 

economics.



[518] Parmenio: Rocky and partners. In regards to Rocky and his extending benefits to 

partnerships I want to make a few points. 

For starters it seems that this doesn’t only include homosexuals, it also can includes 

heterosexual couples that are “partners”, so how long does one have to be with someone in 

order to be considered a “partner” (in a hetero and a homosexual relationship)? Should one 

be considered a “partner” if they have only been together for a few weeks? There are some 

people that get married after a few weeks, so saying that they can’t be too committed isn’t a 

good argument. 

Also how does one catalogue a breakup of domestic “partners”? This isn’t a moot point 

because there is official proceedings for a breakup of a marriage, the authorities are actually 

brought into it. So if you break up with a “partner” how does one go through this (there is 

money involved people)? Should both parties have to sign a letter of break-up? Or should 

one be able to arbitrarily break-up? If they have kids this can have very serious consequences 

too; if one of them leaves the other with the child, then decides to take another partner what 

should happen? 

This takes me to the question of what if someone has multiple “partners”? Considering 

this is Utah people automatically assume that this takes the form of a polygamous marriage, 

which is only a regional peculiarity, it seems very plausible that someone could be in many 

relationships and have many children by different “partners”. So does one extend “partner” 

benefits to all the “partners” that a person has, or has had, or would they have to designate a 

primary “partner”? 

Also if you are going to say that gay people should be brought into the “tent” of society, 

instead of being outcasts, I would assume that you would also like to bring polygamous 

families into the proverbial tent also. Is this true? 


[525] Dange: Group Project. Hello, this is Dange. It is time to start getting together 

groups. If someone is looking for a group member please email me personally using the 

pseudonynm email. 

Thank you! 


[530] McDugall: Group Project. I as well would like to be on the list. 

-Brian 


[533] Hans: Extra Credit Assignments. In preparation for the exam, you should work 

through the questions and answers discussed so far, so that you can give answers during the 

exam which cover the main points discussed in the homework list das-kapital. There was 

lots of thought-provoking material in this discussion so that working through it again will be 

beneficial. 

In addition, all the questions so far in the Annotations called “exam questions” are fair 

game for the exam; you should be prepared to answer those too, whether or not they were 

discussed in class. 


Exam questions are questions 7, 29, 42, 47, 50, 72, 85, 107, 115, 148, 152, 203, 207, and 

249. 

If you are not sure what an acceptable summary answer for the exam is, of either the 

exam questions or the ordinary homework questions, you are invited to submit your answer 

to the list between now and 6 pm on Wednesday. You will get a grade, but this grade will 

only be counted if it improves your average. I.e., if you share your exam preparations with 

others this is a risk-free opportunity to get a better grade. 


[536] Michael: Re: Location of the Study Guide. On Monday We reviewed chapter 

1, sections 1,2, and 3. We did not make it to section 4. Our discussion was guided by the 

questions which are labled “Exam Question” In fact, I have yet to discuss section 4 in the 

Monday session; but I did discuss it during the prior Thursday session as well as during the 

study session last Saturday. However, on both occasions the coverage was a bit light due to 

time. 

Michael 


[540] Ash: re group project. I will join your group. How and when do you want to get 

started? 


[545] Geo: group project? I need to join a group like the rest of you someone let me 

know if I can join and when possible meeting times are. 

Geo 


[551] Jingle: new group for group projects. I think that we should start to form a new 

group for the group projects. Who wants to be in my group? 


[553] PAE: group. I’ll tell you what if anybody wants to form a group here is my phone 

number just call me so we dont have to email each other like 10 times in day. XXX-XXX- 

XXXX 


[559] DarkKnight: Group term paper; Monday night Labor Econ class. I believe 

there are several people in this class who are also enrolled in Matt “I have an inappropriate 

sense of humor” Chang’s Labor Econ class on Monday nights. I think it might be convenient 

to meet together before/after that class to work on the upcoming group term paper. If you are 

interested in joining forces, please e-mail me directly at DarkKnight@marx.econ.utah.edu. 

If several people respond, I’ll link us all up. Thanks 


[564] ADHH: Group. I also am looking for a group to join. 


[578] Will: The Exam. Mike 

I just got an e-mail back from HAns and he said that taking the test on Wednesday would 

be o.k. From our conversation in class I think you said you would give the test to the testing 

center. Thanks for everything and get back to me with the final plan.



[580] Thelonius: Re: You are what you eat. Re: [556]: So... 

There are two muffins rising in a heated oven, one muffin turns to the other and says..., 

“...my, oh my it’s hot in here, are you hot?” The other muffin turns and says..., “...Good god! 

That muffin can talk!” 

-fin- 


[594] Adamwest: Another new group. Anybody want to start a new group? Let me 

know, I suppose we’ll shoot for somewhere around 4 group members. 


[597] Picard: Reply another new group. I’m in if there’s room. 


[598] Bubba: Beginning the next group of 4. Who’s in? (just me so far) 


[604] Prairierose: Group. Adamwest, 

Do you have any more room in your group? 


[605] Pete: The first group. Looks like ADHH, Pete, PAE, TimJim will comprise our 

team. Please e-mail me at phowcro@utah.gov (this is not the e-mail I use for class). It will 

make it less confusing for me. 

Message [605] referenced by [2008SP:842]. Next Message by Pete is [667]. 

[607] BBQ: I have two in my group and need two more. I have two people in my group 

and we are looking for two more. If anyone needs a group please email me. 


[610] SueGirl: Anybody else still need group members? I still need a group as well. Is 

there anyone else still in need of someone? 

Thanks, 

SueGirl 


[611] Tesa: SueGirl. I don’t have a group yet. 


[617] Bubba: to Tesa – grouping. I sent a message to you using your psuedonym @ 

marx.econ.utah.edu. I’ve joined up with Elisas already, and I think it would be great if you 

could join us if you’re not already part of a larger group. Since I had already sent the message 

to you before making the initial group posting, I’ll wait to hear from you before finalizing 

our group plans. 


[618] Mjk: Let me know if you need more people to join your group. I don’t have a 

group yet. I am looking forward to join you if you are 2 or 3 in a group. 


[625] Jerm: Anymore openings in any groups? I don’t have a group yet, does anybody 

have room in theirs? -Jerm 



[627] Michael: Test Reminder. Everybody, 

Just to repeat, the test for the Thursday section will be given at the usual location (BuC 

106), while the test for the Monday section will be given at FAMB 205 (cylindrical building 

just south of BuC). You’ll only need something to write with–I’ll bring the paper. Of course 

the test is fifty minutes, but since it will take a few minutes to hand out the materials you’ll 

have until 6:55 for the evening and 11:30 for the morning, but absolutely no later. Best luck 

to you all! 

P.S. I think the Monday session meets on Halloween. So the obvious question is: 

Who’s coming as Marx? 

Michael 


[630] Cdew: RE: Beginning the next group of 4. I don’t have a group yet, so if there are 

any groups looking for an extra person or a new one to start let me know! 


[642] Bubba: MarxSchmarx. MarxSchmarx, Elias and I joined up right after he posted 

his phone number – maybe if your third does join, Hans will let us be a 5-some. . . 


[643] Xerho: Third member. Bubba, Snowy, and MarxSchmarx, 

I’m the third member who was waiting to hear back. Haven’t heard back, and would be 

interested in joining if Hans approves the 5. 

Thanks guys, 

Xehro 


[647] Hans: Group size and resubmissions. 5 is ok too for a group. I do expect more 

substantial work from a bigger group than from a smaller group. In my experience, some 

groups divide the work that each member writes a part of the final paper, and at the end these 

parts are added together without anybody checking whether they fit. A better integrated 

paper will get a better grade. 

Here is something unrelated: you will not get feedback from me before you make your 

exam resubmissions. 

Hans. 


[649] Hans: Exam preparation for tonight. I just made the last update of the archives 

before the exam. I added comments to over half of your extra credit submissions, and I 

recommend you to review them on the www. Start with 

http://marx.economics.utah.edu/das-kapital/2005fa/0534.htm 

and click on the “Next” button (the first link in the first line) until it cycles you back to 

the beginning of the class.


Hans. 


[653] McDugall: Groups. Are they are openings in any of the group? 


[659] Ash: Spene and Elvis group. Spene and Elvis, 

I need a group as well. Let’s form one. 


[661] Mjk: Re: I am still looking for a group. I need a group guys if there is a room!! 


[664] Avatar: online names. Just wondering if anyone put thought behind their online 

list names and wanted to explain it. Some of them appear pretty “abstract”. 

Message [664] referenced by [667] and [685]. Next Message by Avatar is [827]. 

[665] Xerho: Note to MarxSchmarx. MarxSchmarx, 

I gave you the wrong e-mail in class the other day. Sorry about that. Please send me a 

note about the group. 

Thanks again, 

Matt (Xerho) matt2@assnhealthplans.org 


[667] Pete: online names. Re: [664]: I have no doubt in my mind that each name has 

some obscure meaning or identity tie. They are fun to decipher. 


[668] Overlord: Re: online names. [667]: I started using my name about 4 years ago 

when I became a Tech admin on an on-line car forum. I have used it ever since for almost 

everything including this. It is funny though how people react to the name. They think I am 

some crazy dark person, They get the crazy part right but I am light hearted and funny. Or 

as most people in my family call me Weird. Ah HA 


[669] SueGirl: Study session before Oct. 3rd test? Hi Everyone, 

I was wondering if anyone would like to meet on Saturday early evening to study once 

more for the test on Monday. I had bronchitis last weekend and throughout this week and so 

I was unable to attend the study sessions. Was anyone else unable to be there? It would be 

great if we could all meet on campus somewhere and study - it would be an extra plus if we 

could have some of the Marx gurus like Thugtorious or someone who feels like they have a 

good grasp on the material to help some of us who may be struggling a little. 

What does everyone think? Is anybody up for it? 

Thanks! 

SueGirl 


[670] Demosthenes: RE: Mjk and McDugall. Hi fellas, got room for one more? – 

Demosthenes 



[675] None: Library meeting. Paul, 

I am sorry that I missed you. I was detained in traffic and did not have a means to contact 

you. I arrived at approximately 5pm. I am very sorry! Since I live in West Valley I take the 

201 highway and it is a terrible mess with construction and all. please forgive me, I feel very 

bad about this. I hope you have a great weekend 

Elias 

[676] Aaron: Saturday Sunday Session. I think we should meet in CRCC around 4 or 5 

in one of the Breakout rooms.... 


[677] Aaron: Saturday Study Session Please ignore previous message. I think we 

should meet in CRCC around 4 or 5 in one of the Breakout rooms.... Please respond immediately 

if you are interested, either by email or call my cell 879.5818 

-Aaron 


[678] SueGirl: RE: Aaron and Prairierose. Aaron and Prairierose, 

That sounds great, I’d be up for the study session at 5:00 if that still works for you. We 

should try to round up more people. Do either of you feel fairly confident in the material? 

Hopefully we can get some people to come who are. Where is the CRCC? Anyway please 

email me back to let me know if you plan to come. 

Thanks! 


[682] Ziggy: Re: [677] Saturday Study Session Please ignore previous message. 

Autumn leaves will fall. 


[685] Ernesto: online names. Re: [664]: I am interested in the character Ernesto Che 

Guevara. 


[686] Michael: Important Exam Information. To everyone yet to take the first exam, 

Here are the instructions and things to expect on the test. It seems fair to give these in 

advance since I will not be able to give the Monday session the extra few minutes I gave the 

Thursday session (who didn’t get them in advance). 

Sorry, but this will sound a bit pedantic. 

1. I will hand out the exams along with the NCR paper in packets. You’ll get 4 pairs of 

NCR paper, 1 double-sided sheet with two questions on both sides, and three single-sided 

pages. The NCR paper is similar to carbon copy, except the pages are not bound at the top; 

you have to place the yellow copy under the white. 

2. On both of sides of the double sided sheet there are two questions. You must pick 

exactly one from each side. Your answers to these, but only these, go on the NCR paper. 

3. For the three single-sided sheets, you will put your answers on the test itself, not on 

the NCR paper.


4. You will need to keep the double-sided sheet because it also has instructions on how 

you are to resubmit your answers to the eligible questions (the first two only), as well as a 

copy (the yellow one) from each NCR sheet. You’ll give me the originals and the other three 

exam sheets. It will help me if you have the things you will give me in order as you drop 

them off. 

Thanks for bearing. Best wishes on the exam. 

Michael 


[692] Michael: Monday session will take exams in FAMB 205. Hello, 

It seems that not everyone was aware that the exam on Monday will be given in FAMB 

205 (cylindrical building located just south of BuC). There should be around 80 people 

taking this test since only 19 took it Thursday (class size: roughly 100). Therefore our usual 

room will be too small. Hans anticipated this a few weeks ago and reserved FAMB 205 for 

us. Here are the message numbers of the posts Hans and I have made during the last few 

weeks that contain information on the room change: 

[627] Test Reminder [427] Re: Rules for Switching Sessions on the Exams 

Michael 


[693] MrPink: Re: online names. Re: [685]: My name comes from the movie Reservoir 

Dogs. 


[695] Xerho: Re: online names. Re: [693]: Mine is my bowling name - Xerho 


[700] Thelonius: Re: online names. Re: [695]: Named after Mr. Thelonious Monk 


[705] Hans: Loophole. Two class participants made a regular homework submission 

for homework period w6 this morning, before the exam. In this way they satisfied their 

requirement of having two homeworks before the first exam. Such a maneuver will not 

be possible in future years, but in order to be fair to others, I will count all homeworks for 

period w6 for the requirement of having two homeworks in before the first exam. If you have 

submitted fewer than 2 homeworks until now, you can satisfy this requirement by submitting 

homework answers before 3 am Thursday. 

Hans. 


[707] Jingle: 2 more in my group. There is only ADHH and me in a group. We are 

looking for two more people. 


[708] Robgodfell: Re: online names. Re: [700]: My name you ask what would it be that 

I would pick Robgodfell so judiciously? 

Well a name I found one night a dreary, when I read of happenings in a forest clearing; 

and then I knew my name I saw, clearly bound by fairy gaul; 


A sprite, a mischievous devils snare, a name that would serve me long I dare. 

..that shrude and knavish sprite 

Call’d Robin Goodfellow; am I not he That frights the maidens of the villagery; 

Skim milk, and sometimes labour in the quern And bootless make the breathless housewife 

churn; 

Those that Hobgoblin call me, and sweet Puck, I do their work, and they should have 

good luck. 


[711] Jingle: RE: Robgodfell. You can be in our group. Now we have three. 


[713] Hans: Resubmission instructions. Today some people left the exam without taking 

their instructions with them. Therefore I posted both exams on the web, as 

and 

http://www.econ.utah.edu/ ˜ ehrbar/thursday.pdf 

http://www.econ.utah.edu/ ˜ ehrbar/monday.pdf 

You have to resubmit the questions on the first two pages of the handout; you will not get 

credit if you don’t resubmit them. 

Hans. 


[734] Demosthenes: Re: Zone. Zone, Right on. E-mail me at ... with your info. 


[737] BonzoIsGod: Getting into a group. Do any groups have an extra slot they want 

to fill? If not, if anyone else is looking for a group, send me an email and we will figure 

something out. Thanks everyone. 


[746] Bubba: monopolies in bourgeois econ v. marxism. As I’ve been studying Marx, 

it seems like one of the most important points that Marxism has over micro and macro 

(bourgeois economics) is that the latter too efficiently theorizes away power struggles within 

the economy. “Assuming free market” is a common refrain. I learned something interesting 

in an African International Relations class I have: the state of Ivory Coast sells all or almost 

all of their primary cash-crop product to a single corporation. Just like feudal times, and just 

like the capitalist/wage-relation system, the producers have no choice whom to work for, 

and hence, they can artificially depress wages. 

Message [746] referenced by [749]. Next Message by Bubba is [771]. 

[749] FranciscoVilla: Re: Monopoly. I greatly agree with [746] but I think that perhaps 

the reason that in mainstream economics the strugle for power is not as emphasized as it is 

in the marxist theory is because a monopolistic market is not the norm. Also, perhaps there 

are political reasons for this to be the case. 

Message [749] referenced by [1155]. Next Message by FranciscoVilla is [1008].


[768] Demosthenes: RE: Kjor, Scott, Zone. Sounds good to me, if Scott and Zone 

haven’t found another group yet. Email me at ... with your emails so we can get out of this 

discussion. –Demosthenes 


[778] TimJim: Marx’s Influence at the U. This is my first semester after changing my 

major to economics from finance. It has been two years since I have taken any economics 

so I must admit I am not too familiar with the subject. However I have noticed recently 

what a influence Marx was to economics. I have noticed recently in my Macroeconomics 

class with Yong Jeon, he proclaimed that he believed in Marx’s ideology. He said that 

Marx was not a socialist but rather devoted his life to studying the capitalist society and 

the flaws within. Also my International Economics professor Sakshi Hazuria said she also 

believed what Marx taught. It is interesting when I mention to my family and friends about 

Marx everyone responds, “oh that communist, that teaching is so unamerican.” I just have 

noticed how quickly people are to judge a person or thought that society and the media has 

misrepresented for so long. I must admit his ideas are ideas that I have never thought of 

before and that I definately need to be more critical of our capitalist society. I can’t proclaim 

myself a marxist (yet,) but I am learning so much more than I thought that I would about the 

nation we live in. 

Message [778] referenced by [781], [939], and [940]. Next Message by TimJim is [829]. 

[781] Daleman: I second TimJim’s comments in [778]. Everyone I know thinks Marx 

was some sort of communist, however no one can seem to tell me anything about him. While 

I may not agree with all of his philosophies it I understand his viewpoint and applaud him 

for being critical. 


[782] MrPink: Discussion: new state income tax proposal. So does anyone have an 

opinion on the governor’s new state income tax proposal? 

From what I understand so far, it will impact the head of household and homeowners. 

Neither impact me directly but I’m still trying to figure out the impact on the state’s economy. 


[787] McDugall: Discussion: new state income tax proposal. Re: [782]: Wait and see. 

It could be beneficial, I know it will make filling taxes that much easier. 


[788] Jingle: Re: Marx’s Influence at the U. RE: [781]: I agree with daleman and 

timjim. Marx was very critical, and that’s why I feel people think he is a communist. 


[812] PAE: Meeting time. I know we had discussed some people discussed this before 

but I want to try and form a group on Sundays to discuss Marxs and the class. If people want 

to do this please let me know. 


[824] Hans: Deadline for exam resubs extended by 24 hours. This is a test to check 

whether the currently assigned questions work. 

The deadline for exam resubmissions has been extended by 24 hours, from tomorrow 3 

am to Wednesday 3 am. 


If you don’t resubmit your answer, then the in-class answer will also not be graded. 

Hans. 


[836] Rudy: Re: Marx’s Influence at the U. I’ve noticed that many times when I 

mention to someone I am an econ major at the U, they ask if I’m a Marxist. I’ve heard the 

U econ department has a marxist reputation. Why is that? Is it due to the way so many of 

the professors mentioned agree with him? What reputation do other econ departments have? 

Just some things I’ve wondered Thoughts? 

Message [836] referenced by [843] and [857]. Next Message by Rudy is [838]. 

[843] Claire: Re: Marx’s Influence at the U. RE: [836]: I have had the same thing 

mentioned to me. Most of my professors have been Marxists however, I don’t think that it is 

as dominant as people think. Kind of the assumtion that everyone in Utah is Mormon. That 

obviously is not true in and it is not true in all of our proffessors. 


[857] Thugtorious: Re: Marx’s Influence at the U. RE: [836]: If you are wondering 

about other econ departments, investigate the University of Chicago’s economics department. 

They are, shall we say, “the dialectical opposite” of what is taught in this class. Just 

like with most social sciences (and, contrary to popular belief, I still argue that Economics 

is and will always be a social science) you are going to have a diverse array of paradigms 

– all of which argue they are the correct perspective – and institutions that adopt certain 

“leanings.” 


[864] TriPod: Re: Discussion: new state income tax proposal. Re: [787]: Mcdugall, 

Do you understand it? The Interest you pay on your home now is Tax Deductible. That 

means you get to write that amount off. Do you know that an average home in Salt Lake 

County Is worth $175K, if they had an interest rate of 6% on a 30 year fixed they would pay 

$10,500 in interest over the year or $315,000 in interest over the life of the loan. Who would 

not want to have that come off the bottom line at tax season? Don’t you feel like we pay 

enough taxes? Remember you paid money on this as an income tax. Is it really income? You 

might as well see some benefit. I think this is a real benefit when you are a homeowner. This 

allows you to not feel like you are throwing away money. I hope this doesn’t get changed. It 

would be a real disappointment. 

Message [864] referenced by [865] and [2007SP:864]. Next Message by TriPod is [866]. 

[865] McDugall: Re: Discussion: new state income tax proposal. Re: [864]: In all 

honesty people seriously have to reflect on what they perceive what is really important to 

society. Taxes exist and will continue to exist. They are not a bad thing, to some degree, you 

pay taxes so people can go to school, disadvantaged children can have breakfast at school, a 

military to protect the innocent. 

A simpler tax structure is a good thing. The bottom line is the rich who pay the expensive 

accounts to white wash their taxes with current loopholes will continue to elude tax collections. 

With a simpler tax code, if written correctly, the wealthy will have less opportunities 

to avoid their fair share of taxes.


And another fact, a bit of harsh reality for most Americans, even if you live paycheck 

to paycheck you are better off than 97% of the world. And you could easily adjust your 

lifestyle to reflect your income. I see so much conspicuous consumption here with people 

driving huge suvs and to make things worse I rarely see more than one person in the suv. 

Gas and the Cost of the suv probably exceed 6k dollars a year in ownership costs without 

factoring in maintenance and insurance. 

As long as taxes go to just causes and to the people who need them, we should not find 

taxes inherently evil. Removing lobbying would help make taxes expenditures more moral 

but finding a politician who would turn his back on lobbyists is highly unlikely. As its only 

MONEY may be hard for some people to think just that but there are much much more 

important things in life, like family, friends, education, etc. Money makes likes easier but 

not better. 


[866] TriPod: Discussion: new state income tax proposal. Mcdugall, I pay My fair of 

taxes and I Hate paying them. My Kids are in private school and I pay a fortune for it. I 

also pay my fair share of taxes for public school (which I do not use). So any write off I can 

get I will use. Again we are not cutting corners on taxes we are just following the laws not 

loopholes. 


[867] McDugall: Discussion: new state income tax proposal. Re: [866]: Well, if Utah 

collected more taxes for education your children wouldn’t have to go to private school. Utah 

ranks last in funding for schools and pays teachers terrible wages. If there were more tax 

revenues divided amongst tax payers you could benefits from better schools for your children 

rather than paying a higher rate for private schools. 

I was educated in Massachusetts and we have a lot of top tier private schools. However, a 

good majority of our public schools have high academic standards and provide a quality education 

for students. We pay our teachers well and spend nearly 2.5x as much on each student 

as Utah. Utah needs to put its financial surplus into schools and not highway systems. The 

priorities set by politicians here are terrible and as a result you have to spend more money 

for private schools rather that pooling resources together to provide an efficient, powerful, 

quality, and necessary education system for the State of Utah and the residents. 


[868] Thugtorious: Re: Discussion: new state income tax proposal. RE: [867]: Honestly, 

I am all for the tax proposal so far. From the explanation of the media, lower and 

middle class families will save and it will cost more for the upper class during tax season. 

The only gripe that I have heard is that mortgage interest will be non-deductible, but what 

else does the plan entail? Is there any mechanism that might offset the affect of the change 

in mortgage interest? 

And, as with McDugall, i agree: we should pay more taxes. As for a nation, the United 

States pays amongst the lowest tax rates of industrialized nations. Further, the marginal 

cost of an increase in tax on me is minimal compared to the societal aggregated marginal 

benefit that those extra tax revenues could create (if in the hands of competent leaders but 

that is another argument all toghether). Lets spend more on education, societal welfare 


programs, and our infrastructure! And, lets not keep increasing the defense budget (insert 

irrate response here) :-) 

As for the idea of a flat tax, not necessarily Huntsman, I am for it. Actually, I am more 

for a progressive tax where the wealthier are forced to pay more which creates a more redistributive 

system. 


[869] PAE: Re: Discussion: new state income tax proposal. RE: [867]: No matter 

how good our public school system is here in Utah I know a lot of parents who wouldn’t 

send their children to a public school anyway because they want them to be around a more 

diverse group of children. I knew a lot of kids in private schools here in Utah that went there 

not because they were supperior but because their parents didnt like the idea of one type of 

culture dominating a school where their kids were. 


[870] Thugtorious: Re: Discussion: new state income tax proposal. RE: [869]: Diversity 

in private schools? Don’t want one culture dominating the school so they send them to 

private school? Did you go to school in Utah? I will put my graduating class from a west 

side school up against Judge, Rowland Hall, Waterford, or whatever other private school 

and I give a 100% guarantee that we had a way more diverse class; unless, you are defining 

diversity differently than I am. 


[873] PAE: Re: Discussion: new state income tax proposal. RE: [870]: I did go to 

Judge and would take that bet any day. 


[880] Gza: Re: Discussion: new state income tax proposal. i went to a west side school 

and there was far more diversity than any other school i have visited or been to. i don’t think 

that the education or the teachers was the greatest. i’m sure you can get better instruction 

and one-on-one attention from a private school and graduate better prepared for college. 

However there are some things that you can’t buy such as the environment and experience 

of a diverse surrounding. this is utah and i think that even the most diverse schools, which i 

would argue are on the west side, do not hold a flame to the diversity at some west or east 

coast schools or even schools in the south. as for utah diversity is on the west side, but is 

growing as salt lake grows. 


[881] Keltose: Re: Discussion: new state income tax proposal. Re: [880]: Wasn’t this 

a tax discussion? 


[882] Thugtorious: Re: Discussion: new state income tax proposal. RE: [881]: Yeah, 

it was a tax discussion. I love derailing arguments :-) 


[883] Will: Group Formed. Matt and Will are forming a group. We are two deep right 

now, so if anyone wants to join e-mail us back. 


[904] DarkKnight: Tax Discussion. I’m glad this topic came up, since I wanted to discuss 

it anyway. Every year since 1999, a congressman from Georgia introduces a bill called


the FairTax Bill (H.R. 25). It will repeal the individual income tax, the alternative minimum 

tax, corporate and business income taxes, capital gains taxes, social security taxes, medicare 

taxes, the self-employment tax, estate taxes, and gift taxes. They will be replaced by a 

23% national sales tax on goods and services on the retail level. The FairTax proponents’ 

contention is that as all of the other taxes are abolished (along with the costs of complying 

with the current tax code) prices will fall by about 23%. You get to take home all of 

your paycheck. Under this plan there is a rebate sent to all heads of house for the taxes 

that they would pay on necessities. This aleviates the effect on lower income families. The 

government revenue levels would not change, income tax loopholes disappear, and the underground 

economy is taxed. Without the embedded taxes in the price of goods, U.S. goods 

will be more competetive on the international market. Business decisions will not be made 

with an eye on the tax consequences. The virtual raise we all will receive (by not having 

taxes taken out of our paychecks) will increase savings and investment. That’s what they 

say. What do you think? 


[937] MrPink: Re: Discussion: new state income tax proposal. Re: [882]: I was 

educated in Massachusetts as well, high school. My sisters were educated in Utah. I agree 

that the quality is better. One thing we have to realize is that people pay higher in tax in 

other states (like NY). Also, other states (like Mass.) have state sponsored lottery. 

Back to the new tax proposal, I’m looking for clarity on one issue. If you are a single 

person with no dependants will you get to write off mortgage interest? Also, on the new 

reports they keep mentioning that some people will pay more. Doe anyone know who they 

are talking about? 


[939] Snowy: Marx’s Influence at the U. RE: [778]: In response to TimJim I agree 

with the influences of Marx. I have read and learned about his theories in my other courses. 

He has definetly influenced the world and has contributed to the capitalist world. Although 

some parts of capital I find to be pointless to explain with such depth and complexity such as 

simple form, expanded form, etc. they are exchanges that make sense. I think he would be 

better understood, and for TimJim’s sake, more liked if he would have been more simplistic 

about less complex topics. 


[940] Snowy: Marx’s Influence at the U. RE: [778]: In response to TimJim I agree 

with the influences of Marx. I have read and learned about his theories in my other courses. 

He has definetly influenced the world and has contributed to the capitalist world. Although 

some parts of capital I find to be pointless to explain with such depth and complexity such as 

simple form, expanded form, etc. they are exchanges that make sense. I think he would be 

better understood, and for TimJim’s sake, more liked if he would have been more simplistic 

about less complex topics. 


[943] Ash: resubmission problems. Hans, 

I tried to submit my resubmissions and I recieved the message that the question was not 

assigned. Can you fix that please? 



[944] Thugtorious: Re: Marx’s Influence at the U. RE: [940]: I see Marx’s in-depth 

analysis necessary for several reasons, but they can be summed up in one main idea: he had 

to make sure that his theories were “water tight” because he was arguing that the statusquo 

was/is flawed. If he were to come out and plainly assert his opinions about Capitalism 

without giving the indepth treatment that he gave, his critics could have/would have tore it 

apart, and there would have been no way for it to have the influence that it has. That is the 

brilliance of Marx: he realized how phenomenol and inflammatory his critic of capitalism 

would be before hand, so he sought to make sure that even with the most intelligent people 

critiquing it, it would still survive for the most part. Regardless of your opinion on Marx, it is 

undeniable that he was a brilliant man with incredible foresight into the future of Capitalism 

and the overall ideas of economics, philosophy, sociology, etc. 

As for his influence at the U: Merely by the way the question is posed makes me think 

that Marxism is like the bastard child of Economics (which many would argue is the case). 

However, after being inundated with heterodoxy and classicalism throughout macro, micro, 

and most other econ courses, it is refreshing to take a step outside of the vacuum tight models 

and realize that there is a real world outside of ceteris peribus! When you ask about Marx’s 

influence at the U, I urge you to take a step back and ask Marx’s influence on Economic 

doctrine. Look at Veblen, Weber, Sraffa (sp), Luxemberg, and other outstanding economists 

(not to mention Ehrbar) who have helped in creating/influencing/directing many of the doctrine 

we learn today. And, within their theories, you can most certainly see a huge influence 

of Marx. To me, it is unfortunate that the later part of the 20th century took such a dynamic 

theory and completely destroyed/dismantled/morphed it into something that it is not. 


[953] Manchu: our grade so far. Hello, 

Does anyone know if we are going to get an up to date report of our grade so far? I got 

all of my individual grades for the latest exam but was unsure how it related to a final exam 

grade. 


[959] TriPod: Hans . Is there a length requirement for the term paper, and what exacly 

are you looking for. Our group has gone through the annotations and we are still a little 

confused. Please let us know thanks Tripod 


[967] Hans: Exam resubmissions. For those who have not yet resubmitted all their exams, 

these resubmissions will be accepted again. But since everybody else’s resubmissions 

are on the www, the format must be a little different than before: I would like you to type in 

your in-class exam literally, just fixing orthographic errors etc. but not changing the meaning. 

Then you have to write a commentary about your own answer which says where you 

think this answer is or is not correct, by comparing your answer to all the other answers of 

the same question on the www. In other words, if your original answer contains a mistake 

which was discussed and corrected on the www, your commentary should point this out 

and should provide cross references by referring to the message number like so: [949]. As 

before, you should send these resubmissions to 

exam-resubs@marx.econ.utah.edu


They will not be emailed out to everyone but they will show up in the archives. 


[970] Ace: Exam score. I have a number at the top of my exam results, does any one 

know what this number means, or how much the test was worth all together? I’m not sure 

what the results mean or how to interpret them, so if anyone knows what it means, please let 

me know! 

Thanks. 


[982] Tesa: SueGirl group. I was wondering if you wanted to get together and choose a 

chaper this weekend. Friday maybe? 


[987] Hans: Term papers. Here is an attempt to answer your questions regarding term 

papers. 

How do you choose your term paper topic? 

Some term paper topics are pre-determined and you can find them in the Schedule of 

Homework Assignments. They are scheduled in such a way that they blend as best as possible 

into the current class discussion. For instance, yesterday and today, term papers about 

chapter section 2 of chapter Three are accepted. Next Monday and Tuesday, term papers 

about chapter Seven are accepted. The Monday and Tuesday afterwards, about chapter 10. 

Etc. 

Other topics are suggested by the students themselves. If you have a topic about which 

you would write a term paper, please email me, or email the free discussion list, with a 

proposal. If this proposal is accepted, not only your group but everyone else can write a 

term paper about this topic. 

Do you have to register your group? 

No, but when you submit the term paper, the pseudonyms of all group participants must 

be in a special ::P: line at the beginning of the message. 


[990] Guerito: Need a Group. If a group is in need of an additional person, please let me 

know. I still need to join a group. Thanks. 


[997] Ace: homework. Hans I just tried to submit a homework for Oct. 20 -23 and the 

email said it wasn’t assigned yet shouldn’t it have started today, or am I to early? please let 

me know. thanks, Ace 


[1016] Snowy: The slaves of today. As I was reading chapter seven on the exploitation 

of the laborer I started thinking about the comparison of black slaves in colonial American 

times and the mexicans I work with at a restaurant. 

Slaves received a form of subsistence pay through food and housing that the slave owner 

provided. 


The people I work with (cooks and cleaners) are paid next to nothing, yet enough to 

provide housing and food for themselves. This is due to the fact that they are not educated 

or skilled enough to find other work. What is the difference? Both are forced to work hard 

long hours to merely eat and have a place to sleep. And both are exploited by the capitalist 

who provides them with much less than he can profitably afford to. I know the slaves were 

often physically treated harshly and didn’t have their freedom. Yet, looking at it from the 

capitalist’s surplus-value theory, the Mexicans I work with and other exploited workers are 

the slaves of today. 

Message [1016] referenced by [1017], [1018], [1026], [1038], and [1073]. Next Message by Snowy is [1049]. 

[1017] McDugall: the slaves of today. Re: [1016]: Welcome to the Republican controlled 

country. Welfare for corporations, exploitation of the weak. 


[1018] Pete: the slaves of today. Re: [1016]: Slaves were forced into being slaves. The 

plantation owner considered them property like a cow or a shovel. Where as, Mexicans 

work freely and of their own choice. They work two and three jobs, all the adults in their 

household do the same just to provide food,shelter and a lifestyle. Because they are unskilled 

does not mean they cannot work, it just means they have to work harder and faster. Slaves 

had no hope of anything different so they had no insentive (other than to stay alive) to work 

fast or hard. 


[1019] McDugall: Re: the slaves of today. Re: [1018]: The government is accountable 

for the well being and safety of the people in this country. Disregard illegal immigrant status 

for the time being. The schools in this country are shortchanged everyday. The politicans 

are all aware of this but do nothing but send their children to private schools and give out 

funding to special interest groups. The Mexicans in this argument, lets consider them legally 

here, are disadvantaged because the schools where they live are in horrible condition and the 

faculty there lack basic supplies and funding. And here is something for thought about the 

current feeling of the political majority in this country. 

The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday that he was overheard telling lobbyists: “We 

finally cleaned up public housing in New Orleans. We couldn’t do it, but God did.” 


[1020] Thugtorious: Re: the slaves of today. RE: [1018]: First off: Would things be 

all that different if we had a Democrat in the White House and they controlled the Senate? 

Probably not (and I’m a registered Democrat). If you look at Median Voter theory, political 

candidates will align themselves with the median voter to maximize their chance of winning 

the election. The situation our country faces with polarized wealth and subjugated classes 

has long been in the making. We would need an incredible overhaul to have a more equitable 

distribution of endowments and better society, not just another party in the White House. 

Second off: Working two to three jobs in horrible conditions at an absurd wage is by 

choice? Interesting assumption. Slaves may have been proactively forced into labor. But, if 

have to work to feed your family, pay for shelter, and ultimately survive, is not that “forced” 

labor. Though it may be passive, they are just as much forced to survive. Slaves might have 

been overtly killed, but people leaving at subsistance (it is not just “mexicans”) fight for their 

lives every day of the week!



[1021] Thugtorious: Re: the slaves of today. RE: [1019]: What McDugall is talking 

about is summed up in the Poverty Cycle theory. If you still full-hearted believe in the 

“American Dream,” look it up and reevaluate your opinion. 


[1022] Adamwest: Re: the slaves of today. RE: [1020]: Plenty of things can be blamed 

on Democrats and Republicans, I find it foolish to try and blame the republicans on this 

specific issue. 

I can see the slight resemblance to slaves but it is quite different than before. I work 

commercial construction, so I work with many people who aren’t getting paid the right 

wage. For the most part, the hispanics that I’ve worked with are very hard workers, and a 

good portion of them absolutely deserve more money. There’s just no money to pay them. 

Take for example a dry wall company. Say they pay bare minimum wage to a group of 

hispanics, by paying this wage they are getting jobs because they can give out a competitive 

bid. If this company were to pay these employees more money, it would in turn make their 

price less competitive. Then the hispanics wouldn’t have to worry about working long hours, 

because they would be laid off. The whole system sucks....I just don’t see a way to solve it. 

Just something to think about. 

Message [1022] referenced by [1024]. Next Message by Adamwest is [1034]. 

[1023] MarxSchmarx: Re: the slaves of today. Re: [1020]: The Mexican workers have 

a large advantage as compared to the slaves of colonial America. They choose, but are not 

forced, to work. 

Let’s continue the assumption that these workers are here legally, and have the rights 

associated with being a citizen of this country. 

The reason that I don’t have three jobs is because I choose to have one. I found a profession 

that I am good at, and it is convenient that I am well compensated for my efforts. I 

chose to continue my education so that the income I receive will be increased further down 

the road. 

While working three jobs to provide a minimal standard of living may be admirable and 

noteworthy, in no way are those workers “forced” to do so. In America, everyone has all 

of the resources available to make poor people wealthy. We all hear stories of self-made 

millionaires that raised themselves from substandard living to where they are today. When 

they first realized that they had the self-driven potential to change their lives, they effectively 

“freed” themselves from being exploited. This is a luxury that slaves never had. Their sole 

option was to run away, and hope that the tables turned in their favor so that they could live 

somewhat of a normal life. 


[1024] Thugtorious: Re: the slaves of today. RE: [1022]: Adamwest, What “cut” does 

the owner of the company take? Is that “cut” justified in respect to the subsistance wage that 

another human being is paid out. You looked at one side of the balance sheet, but we need 

to consider the other side also. 



[1025] Pete: Re: the slaves of today. who is “he” mentioned in the last paragraph. I am 

seeing red!!! 

McDugall wrote in [1019]: 

The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday that he was overheard telling 

lobbyists: “We finally cleaned up public housing in New Orleans. We 

couldn’t do it, but God did.” 


[1026] MK: the slaves of today. Re: [1016]: Quoting Snowy ¡econ-5080@marx.econ.utah.ed 

Must you call the people that you work with, “Mexicans”? It is precisely such derogatory 

comments as these that perpetuate discrimination. 

Message [1026] referenced by [1029] and [1049]. Next Message by MK is [1032]. 

[1027] Pete: Re: the slaves of today. Re: [1024]: I must apologize to my class mates, It 

is NOT Mexicans it is Hispanics. If I have offended anyone please accept my apology. 


[1028] Thugtorious: Re: the slaves of today. RE: [1027]: You are not forgiven . . . no 

soup for you!! hahahaha. Hey, we learn and grow through discussions like this. 


[1029] MarxSchmarx: Re: the slaves of today. Re: [1026]: Knowing Snowy personally, 

I am sure that the term Mexican is accurately describing her co-workers’ nationality. I am 

sure that she knows these people personally, and she makes every effort to care about all that 

she comes in contact with. 

Message [1029] referenced by [1030], [1033], and [1050]. Next Message by MarxSchmarx is [1106]. 

[1030] Pete: Re: the slaves of today. Re: [1029]: Snowy can have my soup! 


[1031] Pete: Re: the slaves of today. Re: [1028]: Sorry for dominating the conversation 

but I really have a lot to say on the subject. 

Today’s slaves are called Call Center Workers. They answer calls from all over the world. 

the pay sucks by todays standards. A person working in one of these sweat shops has to 

account for every minute of their shift. They must go on lunch right on time or loose it. 

If you have ever had the pleasure of working in a call senter you know exactly what I am 

talking about. 


[1032] MK: Re: the slaves of today. Quoting Pete [1031]: Perhaps call centers ought to 

be unionized. 


[1033] MK: Re: the slaves of today. Re: [1029]: Quoting MarxSchmarx ¡econ-5080@marx. 

And that may well be true– it was not a personal attack on Snowy. 


[1034] Adamwest: Re: the slaves of today. RE: [1024]: So then we would have to try 

and find a fair cut for the owner vs. the employees. Hard to look at, without the owner there 

would be no company. The owner started it all, took the tests, put up the required money to 

start a company, took the risk. The employee only shows up and works, and can be replaced.


Though you do bring up a good point, there’s a lot of owners out there that deserve to be 

making less than their employees. 

Message [1034] referenced by [1035]. Next Message by Adamwest is [1059]. 

[1035] Thugtorious: Re: the slaves of today. RE: [1034]: “The employee only shows 

up and works, and can be replaced.” Granted, profit is mainly justified with the entrepeneur 

justification that you just described. However, is it right that the owner of a construction 

company is hiring illegal immigrants in order to side-step paying out benefits and union 

wages in order to afford the payment on his Enzo Ferrari, his 500,000 sq foot house, or his 

and his wife’s botox? Illegal immigrants and unskilled laborers are to today’s capitalism 

what children and women were in the time of Marx. The same arguments can be made. 


[1036] Pete: Re: the slaves of today. Re: [1032]: The only call center I know of that has 

a union is QWest.The employer fights hard when union is brought up. 


[1037] Zone: Re: the slaves of today. Re: [1035]: I also work in a restaurant where 

the dish washers are Hispanic, as well as cooks, bussers, servers, and even a manager that 

is technically an illegal alien. This is the first restaurant job that I have seen where this has 

been the case. But after having been in the industry and knowing quite a few people that 

have immigrated here, I don’t think it is accurate to say that they are slave labor. Yes, they 

do fill in jobs that white America does not want but they do these jobs because to them it is 

better than what their options were before. They may have two or three jobs to support their 

needs, but from my own experience I have seen most to be happy individuals, that are happy 

they have an opportunity to work in America. I’m not saying that all immigrants are happy 

and not being exploited but in the reference to restaurant employees it is definitely not slave 

labor. 

Message [1037] referenced by [1040], [1043], and [1051]. Next Message by Zone is [1039]. 

[1038] TriPod: the slaves of today. Re: [1016]: Snowy, 

I will start by saying I am Hispanic born and raised in Utah. You have it way wrong. 

These people are not slaves at all. They choose to come this country in search of better life. 

These people are well educated in their countries which amounts to nothing by US standards. 

You realize that (Mexicans In Mexico) make almost 1.5 dollars per day. They live and work 

in terrible conditions. Would you not come to the US and work for $5.00 to $7.00 to live 

like a King (if you compared the US to Mexico). Are Hispanics exploited? Maybe but they 

are definitely not slaves. Tripod 


[1040] Thugtorious: Re: the slaves of today. RE: [1037]: If a dog is in a kennel with 

water and some kibble-n-bits, that dog might seem happy as all hell. But, that does not 

make it right. Just because an immigrant might appreciate their current state and place in the 

society does not forgive the exploitation of them vis-a-vis the system. I am content, and even 

happy, working for my boss. He has been a friend for years, and I honestly don’t mind that 

he benefits from my human capital. But, might state of being does not justify the exploitative 

system. 


I might go so far as saying that I admire immigrants that are so grateful for the little that 

they have because I truly believe that the meek will inherit the Earth someday. We should 

all be so humble. 


[1041] TriPod: Re: the slaves of today. Re: [1028]: Thugtorious You sound so Tough 

and then you say something nice. Who are you really? hahahhaha. Tripod 


[1042] Thugtorious: Re: the slaves of today. RE: [1041]: The ultimate contradiction 

baby!!!!! I love how a conversation can be derailed so easily with one posting of flattery ;-) 


[1043] MK: Re: the slaves of today. Re: [1037]: Quoting Zone ¡econ-5080@marx.econ.utah 

To suggest that any person is owing gratitute to a society that exploits and manipulates them 

is wrong. Irrespective of the opportunites that any person is so afforded in lieu of their previous 

(assumingly lesser) circumstances does not dismiss the blantant wrong doing of corporations 

and businesses that seek out these persons (in order to continue exploiting them). 

If I were to rescue a pit bull from his demise at the animal shelter, and instead offer him a 

life sleeping on my couch, eating Iams, and playfully wrestling my other pup– with the one 

small caveat that he be required to fight other pit bulls once per month in order for me to 

make a profit from the gambling that would surely take place. I am certain that the pit bull 

(if he could in fact express his thoughts) would happily oblige me– but I am nevertheless 

breaking the law, exploiting the dog, and abusing the position of power that I have as the 

dog’s owner. 

This example is not to liken persons to animals– but rather to make obvious the way that 

persons in positions of power abuse and (tend to) exploit that power. 


[1045] Gza: worker exploitation conv. the whole Hispanic worker exploitation conversation 

is all very interesting. i have to say that i tend to agree with Thugtorious when he used 

the dog kennel analogy. just because someone chooses to go to a country to work, or even on 

a vacation (best case scenario that i wish i could do) and then finds him/her self in a pretty 

good position as compared to their native country, it does not make the situation right. it is 

like if someone is ripping me off and i do not notice it, that does not mean that ripping me 

off is now okay. let me also suggest if someone breaks into your house and steals something 

and you do not notice it for a really long time, or maybe never, the theft is not justified or 

some how now legit. or let me suggest that i beat up someone, is it okay because beating up 

someone is better than murder? if we are going to assume that things are only right or wrong 

based on subjectivity, or depending on if it is “better” than a worse crime, that puts us on a 

slippery slope of ethical business practices. 


[1046] Pete: worker exploitation conv. Re: [1045]: Tripod, here, here. Thanks for 

putting a spin on this that no anglo could comprehend. 


[1047] Jingle: A Woman President. I want to know if anyone thinks that there will 

ever be a woman president? Do you think that a woman president will be beneficial to the 

economy and the United States as a whole?


Message [1047] referenced by [1048], [1057], [1072], and [1169]. Next Message by Jingle is [1198]. 

[1048] Dange: A Woman President. Relating to Jingle’s comment [1047] about if there 

will ever be a woman president... 

I definitely hope and think there will be a woman president one day but I don’t think it 

will be in the near future (not in the next election anyway). 

Message [1048] referenced by [1052]. Next Message by Dange is [1107]. 

[1049] Snowy: Re: the slaves of today. RE: [1026]: sorry if it offended you. In my 

Multicultural class my professor is from Mexico and he refers to himself as a Mexican or 

sometime a Mexican-American. The workers at my work refer to themselves as Mexicans 

as well. I guess I could’ve said latin-americans or mexican-americans? 


[1050] Snowy: Re: the slaves of today. RE: [1029]: Thank you. I did explain myself and 

apologize to those I offended. 


[1051] Snowy: Re: the slaves of today. RE: [1037]: I do agree with a lot of what you 

said. I am not saying that it is just restaurant labor. I am not saying that it is only with 

Hispanics. I just have seen a trend in our capitalist society that uneducated laborers are paid 

less than what their boss could profitably pay them (my father is one example of such an 

employer). This I believe is done to keep them from uprising and demanding more. The 

Mexicans I work with tell me that they could not go one or two days without work. They 

rely on their income so much they can’t afford not to work hard and they also can’t afford 

to voice their opinions or demand a fairer pay because they might lose their job. This is true 

with white low income workers as well (which I stated in the last paragraph of my origonal 

message). I do believe that America offers some of the best opportunity and social mobility 

if that is your fate. Too often though, that is not the case. 


[1052] Bob: A Woman President. RE: [1048]: I am in the feminist economics class and 

I feel there will need to be some advances in international feminist economics in order for a 

Female President to really be a reality. I think in america we could be ready, yet the world 

is a different story. The main problem feminists claim is how to collect data, specifically 

unpaid labor ( or housework). 


[1054] Thugtorious: Re: A Woman President. RE: [1052]: “I think in America we 

could be ready, yet the world is a different story.” I don’t necessarily know what you mean 

here, but I am going to interpret it as we Americans would vote in a woman president before 

the rest of the industrialized world. If this interpretation is correct, I have to say that you are 

wrong. Britain and France, just to name a couple, have had a woman leader. I know there 

are many others (I am just too tired to do the research right now), and unfortunately America 

is on the end of the list as those that have yet to have a woman leader. When it comes to 

progressive feminisim, America gets a “C” at best (in my opinion). 


[1055] BonzoIsGod: Re: A Woman President. The question on whether there will be 

a woman president in the near future is similar to the discussion about “Mexican slaves” 

earlier today. The problem with both of these scenarios, as most people understand, is the 


glass ceiling effect that is imposed. Both parties are in situations where most Americans 

would say they would not discriminate against these groups. But everyone has some form 

of inherent stereotyping. Women will not likely take the office of the president anytime 

soon because they are not seen as qualified for stressful positions. The situation that relates 

follows: 

A father and son are in a car accident where the father dies instantly and the son is in 

critical condition and rushed to the hospital. The doctor walks in to operate and exclaims “I 

cannot perform this surgery, this is my son.” 

Most people hear this and try to figure out if it was his stepfather, if his dad was the 

milkman, etc. But the simple solution is that the doctor was his mother. 


[1056] Pisciphiliac: Re: the slaves of today. RE: [1031]: People that work at call centers 

are not slaves. They have the choice of whether to come to work or not. If they don’t like 

the work, they can get another job. 


[1057] Pisciphiliac: A Woman President. RE: [1047]: I think there will be a woman 

president and it may be the next election, unless the Republican Party can come up with a 

worthy candidate. 

Do you really think that the gender of the president will have an effect on the economy? 

Message [1057] referenced by [1058] and [1060]. Next Message by Pisciphiliac is [1087]. 

[1058] Avatar: Re: A Woman President - Can’t resist this topic. RE: [1057]: I agree 

with the guess that we could see a woman president in the next election. And in response to 

women not be seen as, “qualified for stressful positions,” I also agree, but I don’t think that 

that view, though common is correct. 

My $.02 

One thing I dislike about the place this conversation about a female president often leads 

is the debate over whether a woman could put emotions aside in decision making; so, I will 

concede to critics of a woman president that the answer is - no. A woman couldn’t leave 

her emotions at the White House door and they would affect her decision making ability. 

Now that question is out of the way, we can have a real discussion about the effect of a 

female president. The reason I stipulate that women can’t help making “emotional woman” 

decisions is because making that question the focus of the debate on a woman president 

begs the question: Would emotional ‘woman type’ decisions be a bad thing in the White 

House? To me, that question is a far better question than whether or not woman can avoid 

acting like women; if for no other reason than that it keeps “emotional woman” decisions 

from being automatically considered a bad thing. Honestly, since we’ve never had a woman 

president, no one knows what the effect of “emotional woman decision making” would be 

on the welfare of the country and world. Personally, I think that public policy in a white male 

dominated society could use a little more estrogen. That being said, is decision making that 

is ruled by some sort of spiritual conscience any better (or different) than decisions based 

on profound emotions? I for one would rather be in the hands of a so-called “emotional 

woman” than a Christian fundamentalist.


-Avatar 


[1059] Adamwest: Re: the slaves of today. RE: [1035]: There are very few illegal 

immigrants employed in commercial construction. It should be known that most illegals are 

employed through residential companies who have a MUCH smaller profit margin and are a 

lot smaller companies than in commercial construction. AKA the Ferrari drivers. 

It’s not right that right that companies side-step benefits and union wages. Well, union 

wages are becoming absolute when it comes to Utah and construction. I’m sure many of you 

have seen the signs at different spots throughout utah, they state “Shame on insert company 

or building they are at” then it says labor dispute all over this banner that about 4 people are 

holding. Slightly off topic I just really hate those signs. It’s not a labor dispute, it’s about 

Okland construction no longer being union and the union guys out of california attacking 

them for it. It’s not a labor dispute at all, those people holding the signs are “temps” hired 

from SOS staffing. 

Sorry that doesn’t fit too well with the topic. 


[1060] BBQ: Re: A Woman President. RE: [1057]: I believe so much of our society 

is based on today what the media protrays. Although the new drama series “commander in 

chief” is a fictional based story line, I have to believe that for once it is forcing the American 

people to think about the possibillity of a woman President. This show in my opion is 

working towards enabling the “Hillary’s” of the world to come forth and make their voices 

be known. There are obvious parallels with Hillary Clinton’s presidential ambitions and 

the role of Gina Davis’s character. And in my opinion- the message protrayed could not be 

clearer. Hillary was not the typical Nancy Reagan first lady. She was not in the white house 

making cookies for the staff and making sure Bill’s shirts were nicely pressed. She was far 

too brilliant to sink into the life of the lobotomized social set. How dare we object to her 

rightful position at her husband’s side, using her ample talents to guide this nation during 

his presidency? What were we thinking to chain this political genius to an unfulfilling life 

of china patterns and interior decorating? The opening salvo of “Commander in Chief” is a 

guilt trip for all those Americans who thought an unelected (and then-unelectable) feminist 

extremist should refrain from imposing her will upon the nation. 

Message [1060] referenced by [1063] and [1076]. Next Message by BBQ is [1127]. 

[1061] MK: Re: A Woman President - Can’t resist this topic. Re: [1058]: Quoting 

Avatar ¡econ-5080@marx.econ.utah.edu¿: Emotional decision making? Are you kidding? 

That’s the best you can do? “Women acting like women”? Well then– I suppose that you 

may also feel that an African American is not qualified for the presidency either– after all– 

we couldn’t have “blacks acting like blacks” in office. Unbelievable. The entire line of 

thinking is not only flawed– it’s IGNORANT. 


[1062] MK: Re: A Woman President - Can’t resist this topic. Re: [1058]: Quoting 

Avatar: To believe that a woman - and her estrogen- is somehow incapable of making the 

hard, fast and tough decisions that you imply only men are qualified to make is suggestive 

(again) of discrimination. Women are not only capable of making decisions void of 

emotion—but we do it quite readily, and quite well. 



[1063] MK: Re: A Woman President. Re: [1060]: In response to BBQ Where I agree 

with the assertion that women ought to embrace their talents and interests– either politically, 

socially, or by way of education. I do not believe that the cookie cutter image portrayed of a 

wife and mother is accurate. A woman that so chooses to remain in the home as a full time 

wife and/or mother, is just as brilliant and hard working as Hilary Clinton– they simply have 

different roles and different choices/goals. We mustn’t forget that the hand that rocks the 

cradle is the hand that rules the world. 


[1065] Thugtorious: Re: A Woman President - Can’t resist this topic. RE: [1062]: In 

Response to MK’s anger towards Avatar: 

I believe that you misinterpreted Avatar’s statement. He/she was not saying that women 

are incapable of making tough decisions, nor that they are unqualified to do so. His/her main 

assertion was that women use different criterion, perspective, and paradigms in evaluating 

situations. Do women think exactely like men? No, they don’t. Contrary to what 50 years 

of feminist propaganda has supported, women and men do have differences. Is one way 

better/stronger/more efficient than the other? It is my belief that they are equal in their 

outcomes, but just acheive those outcomes through different means. 

With that said, I would love to see a woman President, especially after (how Avatar so 

beautifully pointed out) having a leader that claims his policy is given to him directly from 

God; he speaks with God. Now, I don’t want this to be read as “a woman would be better 

than Bush, but not as good as most men.” No, I am in no way supporting that. What I 

am supporting is that a woman President (depending on who it was . . . definitely not 

Condeleeza) would be more refreshing than most opponents that either party could offer up. 


[1066] Avatar: Re: A Woman President - Can’t resist this topic. RE: [1065]: Avatarwith 

his/her tongue in his/her cheek, not a foot in his/her mouth. 

“Enlightened feminists don’t argue that they can do things like me do them. They argue 

that they can do things better than men do them.” 

To: Thugtorious and MK- 

Quite right that there was a misinterpretation. Understand that I prefaced my first post 

with an endorsement for a woman president. Referring to the first line of the body section 

of my post, let me restate the point in (hopefully) easier to understand language. It seems 

to me that many opponents of a female president base their argument around the arguably 

untrue statement, “A woman can’t handle the stress of being president, nor can she can 

she discard her emotions effectively enough to make rational decisions.” Even post [1055] 

says, “Women will not likely take the office of the president anytime soon because they are 

not seen as qualified for stressful positions.” I DON’T agree with that sentiment, as MK is 

suggesting. In fact I endorse having a woman as the president (as I have said three times 

now). The point of my post is that the above stated is a LOUSY argument and spending time 

discussing it is a waste of time, as MK so eloquently put it, “The entire line of thinking is 

not only flawed– it’s IGNORANT.” The reason it is so pointless to discuss is (Pay attention


here MK, this is the part of my original post you forgot to read) because it is a “smoke and 

mirror” type of defense. If all of the supporters of a female president are trying to answer this 

question and say, “A woman president could act and make decisions just like a male one,” 

they are ignoring the implication of what that question really is saying: It is BETTER to be 

unemotional and make stoic “mannish” decisions. I concede that argument to opponents of 

a woman president, because I think that even entertaining the question is a weak admission 

that a woman president OUGHT to act like a male one. I don’t agree with that. Why do stoic 

decisions automatically get to be superior to emotional ones? Go back and read my original 

post more slowly, I’m certain you missed something. The discussion shouldn’t automatically 

be about whether a woman can govern like a man, in a way which is already established as 

the RIGHT way to govern. Women should be standing up and saying, “I’m not going to 

argue this, I AM a woman, and I ACT like a woman and I have the emotions of a woman 

and I make decisions like a woman and that is precisely why I SHOULD be president.” 

So, Thugtorious, thanks for trying to give me the benefit of the doubt and MK, please 

actually READ my posts before you start blasting me as ignorant. 


[1070] Hans: Announcement: list netiquette will be graded. I enjoy your conversations 

at the free discussion list here and, as usual, I will intervene as little as possible. But since this 

is a writing requirement course, I would like you to observe 3 things for your submissions 

to the free discussion list: 

(1) try to write well formulated emails without typos or orthographical errors. 

(2) make sure it has an informative subject line which fits together with the content of 

your email. 

(3) Do not include the message you are responding to unless you need to re-forward to 

the list an important passage of it, in order to make your own point understandable. 

Starting tomorrow morning at 3 am, if your submissions egregiously violate these criteria, 

I may apply a form penalty factor to them, which will somehow be used for the computation 

of your final grade. 

I won’t grade the content of your messages, though. 

All your messages are archived now at 

http://marx.economics.utah.edu/das-kapital/2005fa/discussion.htm 

I am also working on sending you a report which tells you whether you have met all the 

deadlines for your shift regarding the free discussion list. 

Hans. 


[1071] MK: Re: A Woman President - Can’t resist this topic. Re: [1066]: I did read 

your post, Avatar– and it advocates a woman as president DESPITE her emotional decision 

making. Yes, you did suggest that you would support a woman as president, yet you drew 

a clear distinction between a man and a woman in the political realm (in particular when 

it comes down to the decision making process). You argued that perhaps an emotionally 


made decision trumps the decisions presently being made (by the dominant male political 

populous)– you nevertheless drew a distinction between men and womens emotional states– 

and an unfair one at that. This is the distinction that I resist. 

You are all so anxious to befriend everyone, and are terribly aware that persons may not 

like what you have to say, stop sugar coating what you have to say. You’re anonymity is 

protected here– say what you will, and be prepared to defend it. 

Avatar– read and understand your own post. 

Thanks. 


[1072] Tiny: A Woman President. RE: [1047]: I for one definitely think a woman 

president may be a change for the better for our country. I agree that is has never been done 

and therefore no one knows what the turn out may be. But again, we’ve had presidents lie, 

cheat, think only of their financial gain, and do badly and people still seem to praise them. 

How could a woman do more wrong than what has already been done by presidents in the 

past. If anything, from where we’re at, we can only improve! Maybe emotion would be 

a good thing-a woman may actually take into consideration families of those going to war, 

a woman may take into thought how it could affect others because they are usually more 

compassionate and insightful. True, not all of these comments or ideas may be true, but I 

too believe we may see a woman win president. Do I think the fact that because she’s a 

female she will have an advantage? Possibly yes. I know I would vote for a woman and I 

know many men who feel the same way. As long as she’s qualified as a candidate. 

Message [1072] referenced by [1082] and [1267]. Next Message by Tiny is [1073]. 

[1073] Tiny: the slaves of today. RE: [1016]: I agree with many points that have been 

voiced and there are some I do not. 

For example, many people talk about how mexicans or hispanics (in this example) are 

compared to slaves of old. First off: many of the slaves came here in the first place (before 

there was slavery) in hopes for a better life. Sad as it sounds, life expectancy and environment 

were better here than the countries they were coming from. Even after slavery was 

put into effect, many still came here. Whereas hispanics or mexicans or any other racial 

background, they are not slaves. They do have freedoms that many others in their countries 

don’t have. Yes, many do work in environments that don’t offer them benefits that others 

may (you can also find that in companies who pay their employees well and to Americans). 

However, they are making a choice. Either they can work here or in their own country. The 

language barrier may hinder them, but it is fair. Its harder on co-workers and customers to 

understand and for the employee to understand or explain. Many of us are in school to get an 

education and find a job to earn more money. But we are doing something! We are earning 

the qualifications needed for the jobs we fill. Granted, many of our jobs and economy are 

amplified by the workers. However, I do not consent with illegal immigrants coming here 

and demanding the same assistance as others who may taxes or are not committing illegal 

acts. Many do work two or three jobs. People say its because they need the money. Well, if 

they are illegal immigrants not paying taxes and they are living with 2 other families (as they 

usually do), then I don’t understand why they don’t have enough to support themselves and 

their families. Their kids are going to school and getting an education on our school system.


The parents should encourage them. Their kids have the opportunity for a better life then 

their parents. Some may say, “well how are the parents suppose to help their kids if they 

don’t speak english?” Well, their are many classes offered at community centers or schools 

for free or cheap. They can be and should be self reliant. I have seen some people come here 

from other countries and it saddens them to see others of their race who don’t try to better 

their life for themselves and family. I have seen others who have taken what this great country 

has to offer and succeeded and accomplished much, more than I have. So, I don’t think 

there’s an easy answer for the question. There needs to be some self independence and there 

also needs to be some understanding. Its not a one way street, but I definitely don’t think 

people from other countries who are here legally . . . or illegally (although I don’t condone 

it), are slaves. There may be some situations or environments that need to be addressed, but 

we have come far in eliminating slavery (but not racism or discrimination). 

There is my opinion and you can either agree or disagree, but either way, it is my opinion. 

-T 


[1074] Avatar: The Sugar Coated Post: More than just a breakfast cereal. (Female 

President Discussion). MK: 

If you are at all interested in continuing this discussion thread would you clarify a few 

things about your post for me? If you’re not interested in talking about this anymore, I can’t 

say that I’m surprised. Four posts into it and I feel like I’m beating a dead horse. 

You said, “...you nevertheless drew a distinction between men and womens emotional 

states– and an unfair one at that.”(sic) Could you clarify what is the nature of the unfair 

distinction I drew? Also, what is unfair about it? 

If you clear that up, I promise to stop “sugar coating” my posts. 

Thanks, 

A 


[1075] MK: Re: The Sugar Coated Post: More than just a breakfast cereal. (Female 

President Discussion). Quoting Avatar ¡econ-5080@marx.econ.utah.edu¿: I’ve exhausted 

my interest in the topic. 

Have a great night. 


[1076] DarkKnight: Hillary Clinton, the first woman president. This is in reference to 

BBQ in [1060] 

Two points: (1) Hillary Clinton has already come forth and her voice is being heard. 

She’s in the U.S. Senate, as I’m sure you’ve heard. (2) Nobody objects to her being by her 

husband’s side during his presidency. Her influence in that role is appropriate. However, it 

is not the role of the First Lady to “guide this nation” as some sort of co-President. I think 

we’ll see in the next few years if she really is a “political genius”. Personally, I think she is 

politically disingenuous. 



[1080] Demosthenes: RE:Hillary Clinton, the first woman president. This discussion 

brings up a really interesting point. BBQ talked about how Hillary wasn’t in the white house 

doing Bill’s ironing or otherwise playing house. (Not that I imagine ANY first lady does the 

president’s laundry.) Shame on us, he says, if we were to chain up her genius and not allow 

her talents to help guide the nation. 

Darkknight touched on this a little bit, but the position of First Lady really doesn’t hold 

any political power or privilege. She doesn’t have power to veto bills or declare war. Her 

name doesn’t ever show up on a ballot. When her husband is elected, that doesn’t give her 

any more power than she did the night before she was elected. Her voice holds just as much 

authority as any American citizen’s, although admittedly amplified. 


[1081] Thugtorious: Vote for Thugtorious, the USA’s 1st First Gentleman!! Oh contrair 

to those that believe the First Lady has no power. Since the wonderful Eleanoire Roosevelt, 

the role of the First Lady has taken on more importance administration by administration. 

Granted, they may have no de jure power (granted from Congress, judicial precedent, 

or other means), but they have enormous de facto power. Why do we care if Laura Bush visits 

victims of Hurrican Katrina? Or, why do we care what Jacueline Kennedy Onasis wore? 

(I visited an exhibit of her dresses while I was at the Met in New York; I waited in line for 

2 hours!). Because the First Lady represents, reflects, and sometimes takes the place of the 

President in many different ways and roles. To “posh-posh” the role and importance of the 

First Lady is just like de-emphasizing the importance of the Vice-President and his/her role 

in the elections (because we only vote for the President and the Vice-President is the “free 

prize in every box”). 

General Colin Powell opted to not run in the 2000 elections because he knew that his 

family would be taken through the mud along with him. Much the same can be said for 

any person that runs for public office. The closest person to the President (or, in my opinion, 

should be closest to the President) is his wife. And, from this close relation, she is the person 

that gets splashed the most by the mud slung at the President. 

On a related yet unrelated topic, how would it be to have a “First Gentleman”? That 

would be interesting. I would love that role!! Now, I have to find an ambitious woman to be 

my running mate because, come on, the First Lady/Gentleman is up for election too!! 


[1082] PAE: Re: A Woman President. RE: [1072]: I completely agree with what Tiny 

has to say about a woman president. I mean looking at the president we have in there now 

I don’t see how we could do any worse. Also throwing Clinton in that same category of 

screwing up during his presidency I don’t think a woman could do anything to shock the 

American public that the men who have run this country for 200 years haven’t already done. 

The best thing in any company, organization, or even small group is a change of pace and 

fresh set of ideas. A woman president would bring some new ideas as well as some new 

ways of dealing with things, I would definitely support a woman president 

Message [1082] referenced by [1086]. Next Message by PAE is [1083].


[1083] PAE: Vote for Thugtorious, the USA’s 1st First Gentleman!! RE: [1081]: Thugtorious 

I too would love to be the first gentleman of the Unites States. Now all I have to do 

is find the right woman. 


[1084] Thugtorious: Re: Vote for Thugtorious, the USA’s 1st First Gentleman!! There 

we have it!! The first run-off election between First Gentlemans!! Thugtorious vs. PAE!! 

Don’t forget to vote on November 8th!! :-) 

Disclaimer: Thugtorious is in no way asserting that he should be classified as a “gentleman” 

in the chivalry-type tradition. The only use of the word in relation to Thugtorious 

should be made in the context of the election. Further, there should be no confussion about 

the term “gentleman” being demeaned to the point that a person such as Thugtorious could 

be called one. 


[1085] Nazgul: Dumping on Utah. Switching the discussion topic from Thugtorius and 

PAE’s possible candidacy runs, I would like to get some opinions on the article in the Salt 

Lake Tribune about foreign waste being dumped in Utah. 

In San Juan County at the International Uranium Corp’s mill, they have accepted 500 tons 

of uranium contaminated soil from Japan. I understand the need for such facilities as IUC as 

well as Envirocare’s facility in Tooele, what I have a problem with is the lack of regulations 

that allow foreign waste to be accepted. It is bad enough that Utah is a dumping ground for 

radioactive waste and other contaminants that are produced within the U.S. but now we are 

accepting waste from other countries? 

State representatives of the legislative Waste Task Force have admitted that the question 

of foreign waste “never came up... We probably ought to have that discussion.” Senator Curt 

Bramble of Provo said. The Corvallis Gazette Times remarked on the situation that foreign 

waste, radioactive or not should not be dumped in Utah. 

I strongly believe that Utah regulators need to give this and other issues regarding IUC 

and Envirocare much closer attention in addition to stricter policies. IUC is currently in 

talks with a company in South Australia to accept some of their waste. To me this is not 

acceptable. A clear line needs to be drawn. The money gained today from these transactions 

is going to be worth nothing in the years to come if Utah continues to act as a dumping site. 


[1086] Keltose: Re: A Woman President. Re: [1082]: I have no problems with a woman 

president. The only problem I have is Hillary Clinton. 


[1087] Pisciphiliac: Re: A Woman President. RE: [1086]: Keltose, 

Perhaps you would like to explain your position a little more clearly. Can you name a 

better qualified female candidate for President? 

Quoting Keltose: “I have no problems with a woman president. The only problem I have 

is Hillary Clinton.” 



[1088] Thelonius: Re: Vote for Thugtorious, the USA’s 1st First Gentleman!! Re: 

[1084]: Oh comon now fellas..the 1st gentleman, by virtue of his role, really needs to be 

a genuine renaissance man, not overly suave, but unbearably charasmatic. A healthy blend 

of Van Wilder, Bill Murray, Steve McQueen and Bono would do nicely, I think. But if 

you are both serious about this, you need to understand how vital this role is to the United 

Association of Men. The 1st gent is no Martha Stuart in the office type, there is no dog 

walking, petunia planting for this fella around the WH. I insist that the 1st gent must be a 

feminists nightmare, I won’t say Hefner, but closer to Hefner than Gates. Be wise, there’s 

alot riding on this. 

-T 


[1090] COMMI: Re: A Woman President. Re: [1087]: What makes Hillary Clinton 

qualified to be the president? 


[1091] McDugall: Re: A Woman President. Re: [1090]: Not a Hillary Fan, however, 

What made George Bush qualified to be president? 


[1093] Legolas: a woman president. i believe the debate should not be whether she 

is female or not but what he/she can do for our country....if we vote on a candidate based 

on gender, then we are only worsening our countries future....and right now there are very 

few women in the u.s. who have shown they will not buckle under pressure, like Phillippine 

president Arroyo,nor be too open to change, like hillary clinton....perhaps if a women were to 

be elected, the best possible candidate would be Condoleeza Rice; talk about two minorities 

at once a black women becoming president, now wouldn’t that be something???? 


[1094] Keltose: Re: A Woman President. Re: [1091]: Condi Rice would do a much 

better job than Hillary. 

http://www.stophillarypac.com/ 


[1096] Thugtorious: Ms. Rice?!? Oh please say you did not just suggest Condeleeza 

Rice?!? 


[1097] McDugall: Re: A Woman President. Re: [1094]: She very well may have the 

intellect and devotion to do it. But do we really want someone from the Bush administration 

taking over his policies and ruin this country even more than it already been done. 


[1098] Keltose: Ms. Rice?!? Re: [1096]: Hillary is just trying to appeal to the conservatives, 

and middle rights for office, then once in slowly go back to her extreme left and turn 

this country into a heavily taxed, socialized version of Canada.=20 Say good-bye to the war 

on terror...Which I understand many of you would be fine with that, but oh well I support. 

That’s probably a new discussion. 

Ms. Rice I’ll have you know has no hidden motives. You know damn well, that she is 

capable of taking down Hillary.



[1103] Demosthenes: Re: Ms. Rice?!? She is more than capable of taking down Hillary. 

Take a look at her long list of credentials and accomplishments. She is the most educated 

and qualified woman in the United States today to fill the presidency. 


[1104] PAE: Re: Ms. Rice?!? RE: [1103]: Even though Rice is very educated and 

does have a rather impressive list of necessary credentials, I agree with whoever mentioned 

that no one from this Bush Administration should hold office again. I think they have done 

enough already. 


[1107] Dange: Re: ANGER: Latest Oil News. Great points, MarxSchmarx! 


[1109] MarxSchmarx: Re: ANGER: Latest Oil News. Re: [1108]: An unfortunate side 

effect of online forums is the ability for anonymous and petty name-calling. McDugall, I 

encourage you to reread my original post and inform me (as well as the rest of the class) what 

it was I wrote that would justify me being a “Republican apologist”. I, in no way, made an 

attempt to justify the current political agenda of the current administration. If we sat down 

together and conversed about politics, you may find that you previous label is inapplicable. 

Unfortunately, we do not have that luxury, and I now would be weary of any attempt to meet 

and speak with you. You have offended me, and may have offended those who tried to read 

my post with an open mind. 

I was observing and commenting on my view of society and how fickle they may be. In 

one situation the public will condone and celebrate the actions of the parties involved. In my 

example, this would be the reaction of the public by investing in companies that had failed to 

post a profit. In another related situation, society will call for the heads of the people that are 

in the same position of the ones that they condoned earlier, even though the business posted 

a profit. This relates to the public outcry that we could, and probably will, see in reaction to 

Exxon’s profits. I was making an economic observation, not a politically charged apology. 


[1110] McDugall: Schmarx. MarxSchmarx if I offended you, I apologize. I did not write 

the response with the intent to offend you. 


[1111] MarxSchmarx: Schmarx. Re: [1110]: McDugall, 

Thank you for the apology. 

What has bothered me lately in this forum, is that people are very quick to label and judge 

one’s views. The anonymity that is insured because we have pseudonyms has helped some 

people express their views who would not raise their hand in a live class. On the flip side, 

people are a little harsher on our fellow classmates because they know that their true identity 

is hidden. 

I may sound like I am trying to take the fun out of the forum, but I feel that general respect 

for others, and their opinions, is always a benefit. 



[1112] Thugtorious: Schmarx and McDugall. If it makes you feel better, I would be 

just as harsh, quick to judge, and anal in class as I am online ;-) hahahaha. 


[1125] Overlord: test. Test, My submissions don’t seem to be working. 


[1129] Hans: maintenance. The computing team of the college is doing some maintenance 

between now and 10 pm, therefore the mailing list server may be off line in the next 

couple of hours. 

Hans. 


[1155] Thelonius: Re: Monopoly Re: [749]: Citing the example of cash crops in the 

Ivory Coast, seems to have a similar character to the sugar cane industry in India today. In 

India most village based sugar cane farmers live and work according to thier own means. 

The farmers have no one to take orders from, or no one organization to set wage levels 

indescriminately. However, when the farmer havests his crop, the sale/exchange takes place 

at a regional transfer station in most cases. There the sugar cane is weighed, and the farmer 

compensated in currency. The issue in relationship to the ivory coast, is that the Indian sugar 

cane farmer is not paid a local, regional, or national price for the sugar cane, the farmer is 

paid the according to the global price of sugar cane, as it is listed on real-time internet stock 

and commoditity price indicators. We can assume that these farmers are being compensated 

for less than what they would have if the price for sugar was local, given that their farming 

means are not industrial but are more commonly traditional. In this case, it is the global 

market economy that has dictated the wage of the cane farmer. Can this be summarized as a 

fault of the expanded form of value, in a global market economy setting? 


[1160] Karlwho: Anyone need a person in their group? I thought I was in a group, but 

I guess I’m not. Does anyone have an opening in a group? 


[1168] Thelonius: Re: A Woman President Re: [1052]: Take a gander at other 1st 

world powers. Margaret Thatcher was a political mogul, and Germany was neck and neck 

for a woman Prime Minister in this most recent eloection. The US is a bit more phallic in 

nature with our Nukes and tractor-trailer SUV’s, so its not going to be a domino effect here. 

However, recall the arguments against affirmative action. Does a person’s demographic 

make them more qualified or their skillset? Sympathies shouldn’t qualify a person, though 

they do. 


[1169] Ernesto: A Woman President Re: [1047]: I believe that there is a good possibility 

there could be a woman president this next election. Don’t underestimate the abilities of 

Clinton. She has progressively moved toward the middle in order to capitalize on the swing 

vote. If anyone has the ability it could be her. 


[1171] Thelonius: Re: A Woman President Re: [1169]: I agree that Hillary may have 

a go at it, though she is politically just as much a man as she is a woman. Rice, I think is


on the wrong team..very capable and impressive woman. Cond. Rice seems to be the most 

honest of any within the current admisitration, and that may be because she is a woman. 


[1172] Thelonius: Read 1170! I want to hear as many thoughts on this topic as you all 

can muster. The end of oil is fundementally our economic future. We need to challenge each 

other intellectually on this topic as much as any, and there couldn’t be a more appropriate 

topic to address in concert with Marx. 


[1180] Astclair: Re: A Woman President Re: [1171]: On Hillary: 

Hillary currently has over 40% support within her party to run in the next election, which 

is far and away the most support for any candidate within either party. Then next closest 

are Kerry and Edwards, with about 16% each. That being said, it looks like Hillary should 

waltz through the primaries and emerge as the democratic candidate, provided she doest go 

Howard Dean on us. 

But is she electable? I would argue not, provided the Republicans put up a strong candidate. 

There is no clear front runner right now, but the top support is fairly even between Rice, 

McCain, and Giuliani. Without Rice in the picture, Giuliani has a slight edge for support 

over McCain, although that should change as time goes on. If the Republicans ens up with a 

candidate that is too far right, then Hillary will have a decent shot. But the Republican think 

tanks are far too clever to let this happen. If Hillary ends up in the race, I think the GOP 

would be wise in promoting McCain, whom gets support from both parties. 

My argument against Hillary is this: She should be able to beat out her own party competition 

because she is a woman. I am not saying she isn’t qualified, she definitely is, and this 

combined with her gender will put her in the front of the pack. But what will happen when 

she is running against only one person? This is where i think her gender will fail her. I think 

that there will be a certain segment(only democrats) that will vote for her just because she 

is a qualified woman, but there will also be an equally prominent segment(democrats and 

republicans) that will vote against her because she is a woman. SO, she will only gather the 

gender votes within her own party, but she will also lose gender votes within both parties, 

and i assuming the swing voters will be split and less effected by the gender issue. 

Message [1180] referenced by [1182] and [1267]. Next Message by Astclair is [1185]. 

[1182] Thugtorious: Re: A Woman President RE: [1180]: Has anybody taken a look 

at recent approval ratings of our Commander and Chief along with his noble sidekick? Ole’ 

G.W. is in the low 30’s and Cheney is scrapping by with an upper teens. Before we even 

move to the next presedential election, what about the midterm election? I am praying to the 

all-mighty that we can have either a power-equalization (if you will), if not a complete shift 

of the pendulum. 

As for Hillary and the next election, the only thing holding her back from a nomination 

is that the Dem’s will want to put up someone that can take down any Republican. I don’t 

think that the Repub’s will have much clout in the next election, but it might not be the right 

time to have a woman run for the oval office. 



[1188] Thelonius: Re: A Woman President Re: [1182]: Cheney’s former secretary of 

state is on trial today for 5 counts of Felony. hmmm.... At this point i’d elect Jerry Seinfeld. 


[1191] Ernesto: Re: ANGER: Latest Oil News-Please Read Re: [1187]: Do you mean 

delete everything in the box before responding? If so, thanks. 


[1192] Astclair: Re: A Woman President Re: [1188]: Point noted that the Republicans 

are in turmoil right now, it is just too bad for the Dems that it is 3 years too early. The 

Repubs have plenty of time to rebound from this, and they will. All the party needs to do to 

get away from this, is get away from the Neo-Con image for the next election. This is why 

I think that McCain will end up the fron runner. This next election will be a crossroads in 

redefining the republican party...which needs to get away from the far right neo-conservative 

imperialist approach. 


[1195] Thelonius: A Woman President. The Democratic Party risks losing the election 

by fielding a woman candidate. I’ll be sporting Hillary tee-shirts to get dates with cute liberals 

and to rough up the militant conservatives in my family (i.e. my sweet grandmummy). 

Pipe dream, though it may be...I would adore the sight of a bonified 3rd electorate running 

independant. Now that would be freedom ringing. 


[1196] MrPink: Happy Diwali. Hi everyone, 

I’m a day late but I just wanted to wish everyone a happy Diwali! 

My mother is Jain so growing up this was really big deal in our home. 

I’d send some cool pictures but it doesn’t work in plain text. :) 

To learn more here is a link: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diwali 

Mr. Pink 


[1198] Jingle: Robgodfell and Xxx (our group project). Hi Robgodfell and Xxx, 

I have decided to do our group project on chapter 13, the only problem is that chapter 

13 is due on Tuesday and I am out of town til late Monday Night. I will make a draft this 

weekend and e-mail you guys by Monday night at midnight. I hope that you will be able to 

review it early tuesday morning, so we can turn it in by Tuesday night. Hopefully I can get 

to a computer while in California, but just in case I don’t, look for the draft on Tuesday. I 

just really want to get this group project out of the way, and that is why I am doing it this 

way. If you guys really don’t want to do ch 13, let me know by Monday night, but by then I 

will almost have it all done. please e-mail me your thoughts. Robgodfell and Xxx you guys 

can contact me at xxx@xxx.xxx 


[1213] Cdew: Prairierose and Karlwho. Oh, okay that sounds good, lets get started 

soon. My email address is xxx@xxx.xxx, so if you guys want to send me your real addresses


and contact information then we can start working on the paper. If you have any ideas on 

what chapter you want to do let me know. 


[1219] Iblindone: Happy Diwali Re: [1196]: Hey any holiday that has fireworks I am all 

for. Thanks for sharing this. 


[1224] Overlord: religion. This is quite a hot topic across the globe so I do not plan to 

elaborate too much. What I do want to talk about is the lack of understanding between the 

religious and the UN-religious. I will use my case as an example. I was born and raised 

in Utah by a father that came from a religious family and a mother that did not. My father 

was never into religion and he and my mother decided to not force me to go to church. 

Growing up in Utah and not being religious gets you in trouble with the Mormons and the 

non-Mormon religious folks. My whole life I was asked the same question, “How did you 

learn right and wrong if you didn’t go to church?” 

This to me was a really stupid question to me. I didn’t have this fear of God that every 

one else seemed to have and they were quite baffled that I knew right from wrong. So I ask 

those of you who are religious why is it that it is hard to believe a non-religious person can 

understand right from wrong? 


[1225] Overlord: Re: A Woman President Re: [1168]: The question “Should there be 

a woman president?” is as half witted as asking a thirsty person if they would like a drink of 

water..... Of course there should be. Why the hell not? We, in America, require a president 

so why should it matter if it is a Woman? I think if a person was qualified and had a good 

plan then I would vote for them. The sad thing is I just had this conversation with other 

women and some of them actually said “A woman’s place is at home” What the hell???? I 

was confused and the other women were pissed. So then I sat back and watched a 2 on 3 cat 

fight. 


[1227] FranciscoVilla: Religion. Response to [1224]: 

I think there are too many people that are close-minded and set in their ways. As Karl 

Marx puts it, religion is a way for the powerful to control the masses. Although I am a 

religious person, I disagree with the “general” concept/belief that people that do not attend 

church are incapable or less capable of learning right from wrong and even becoming a good 

strong part of society, with good values. I believe that oftentimes religion becomes another 

means of discriminating against others. These beliefs have been drilled into all societies, in 

one form or another, since the beginning of mankind. It serves but one purpose, and it is to 

divide and control the masses. Fear and division are controlling factors. – Of course people 

can be taught good values and learn right from wrong without going to church. Church or 

religion is simply a tool that can be used for many things from controlling the masses to 

building up good character or creating good social skill. A good way to prove my theory 

that religion is a simple tool, is the fact that social values change from place to place and 

from social realm to social realm. Thus generally, the overall methods of religion seem to 

“generally” conform to its immediate social and cultural influences – Let us become more 

open minded and accepting of others. Learning is the beginning of this process. 


Message [1227] referenced by [1233]. Next Message by FranciscoVilla is [1229]. 

[1230] Astclair: Re: A Woman President Re: [1225]: I dont think you will get too 

many arguments, in this class, which argue against whether a woman should be able to be 

president. At least i hope that university students are progressive enough to handle this 

idea. I think that the argument is if a woman will be president, which is an entirely different 

concept. 


[1233] Prairierose: Re: religion Re: [1227]: I have to agree with Franciscovilla that we 

need to become more open minded and accepting of others. Many religions preach but do 

not practice these beliefs. As for values and morals religion is not the only arena to learn 

these. 


[1234] Thelonius: Religion. The fallacy of religion in general is that individuals can 

assert their own opinions as paramount to all others by virtue of their religious faith. Faith 

is an emotional leap of reasoning, not objective reasoning itself. Founding an argument on 

religious bases is a claim that your personal opinions are “God’s” opinions, yet on a global 

scale, it appears that god tends to contradict Gods-self. Unfortunately for the religiously 

pious, religious arguments are not typically grounded on the physical reasoning our world is 

based upon. For perfect instance, Charles Darwin held one of the first objectively conservative 

explanations regarding the origin of life, which challenged the phenomenal description 

laid out in the Old Testament. It’s a perfect example of reasoning vs. popular faith. Darwins 

explanation held so much accuracy of reasoning and moral correctness, that contemporary 

religions cannot help but shift their positions on origin to be compatible with Darwin’s mystically 

benign explanation. 

In terms of morality, ethics, or discussions of right and wrong...I once learned in the 

church of my upbringing (as many others have), that people with dark skin have that appearance 

because they are the offspring of races of people cursed by god. Later, in biology it was 

explained to me that skin colour is based upon the amount of UV-B rays the skin is exposed 

to over time. Just as Darwin argued, humans skin adapted over time to contain more pigment 

in order to block harmful UV-B rays. So in this case, I would stand by the UV ray argument, 

the pious may call me immoral, but its simply the most justified argument, most moral, most 

right and more conservative than arguing that coloured skin is emblematic of gods curse. To 

maintain that coloured skin is a curse of god would be complacent dogma. So is it dogma 

that a person seeks to justify, or justice itself? 


[1236] Ziggy: resinscribed misunderstanding. I agree with your statement that it is 

problematic when people often justify their beliefs with claiming that their view is God’s 

view, which is the ultimate trump card. However, dismissing people’s value laden beliefs 

merely because it does not fit into the system of logic fails to meet them on their grounds 

and therefore is like two ships passing in the night. You value the explanation grounded in 

physicality, science. But even if someone accepts the melanin explanation, that still does not 

prevent them from making value claims like, for example, that melanin-deficient people are 

weaker. Since we live in a highly racially structured society, where people are granted or 

denied privileges based on their skin color, we, as scientists, philosophers and compassionate


people, are obligated to look at systems which perpetuate values of inequity in order to chip 

away at the narratives that bolster such views. So if the mark of Cain was not dark skin color, 

what does that story mean? Why did God reject Cain’s offering? The theme I see here is 

reinscribed in broader terms than even race: those people who suffer deserve their suffering. 

Are we going to buy into this interpretation? Does someone else have a better one? Is the 

God depicted here a God of white men or of everyone? 


[1242] Michael: Test Reminder. Hello All, 

This note is just to remind you that we have an exam on the 14th for the day session and 

the 17th for the night. Hans is checking whether we are likely to need a larger room, so you 

may assume until otherwise notified that we will use our usual room. 

Thanks, Michael Hogue 


[1244] Michael: Review for Exam 2. Everyone, 

I will hold a review/QA session this Friday and Saturday at the following times/locations: 

Friday - 2:00 P.M. - 4:00 P.M. BuC 306 

Saturday - 9:00 A.M. - 11:00 A.M. BuC 106, our usual room 

I am not planning on any differences between the two sessions; it is only an attempt to 

accomodate different availabilities. 

Michael 


[1247] Michael: Test Reminder, Part 2. Tripod asked about the rules determining the 

session in which you can take the exam. You can find the rules in the syllabus and reiterated 

in a post of mine just before the first exam, but here they are again for your convienience. 

One way: 

Assign -1 if you take an exam early, 0 if you took it on time, and 1 if you took it late. 

Then you must take the second exam at such a time that when you add the assingments the 

result is at most 0 (i.e., on average you take the exam on time or early) 

Or, to say it differently: 

If you belong to the night section, but took the first exam during the day session, then 

you have to take the second exam during the day session (because you took it late the first 

time, you must reconcile that by taking it early the second time). If you belong to the day 

session, but took the first exam with the night session, then you may take the second exam 

with either section. Similarly, if you belong to the night session and took the first exam with 

the night session, you may take the second exam with either session. Lastly, if you belong 

to the day section and took the exam with that section, you must take the second exam with 

the day section also. 

Michael 



[1248] Hans: When you have to take the second exam. Sorry, Michael, I didn’t know 

you were sending out this detailed email. At the same time I was writing this here, which in 

part overrules yours: 

It the grade summary which you received yesterday says that you took your first exam on 

Thursday, then you can take your second exam either on Monday or on Thursday. 

It the grade summary says that you took your first exam on Monday, then you must take 

your second exam on Monday as well. This is the same as the rules Michael sent out. 

However I will waive this requirement for those whose GPA for the first exam was less than 

3.5, because I want to give you the extra time to study, and for anybody who organizes a 

study session for his or her peers. They are allowed to take the second exam either Monday 

or Thursday, at their convenience. I am aware that this punishes those who got the good 

grades, but please look at it this way: it is easier for you than for the others to make the 

accommodations necessary for the logistics of the exam. 

If you didn’t get a grade summary, then something is wrong and you should contact me 

immediately. 

As of right now both exams will be in the usual classroom, unless we get an extremely 

low turnout on Monday. 

Hans. 

Hans: Note added later: a clarification of the study group exemption is given in [1294]. 


[1249] Prairierose: Re: A Woman President. I completely agree with Astclair’s comments 

in [1230]. I do not think the question is whether a woman should be able to be 

president. However, when will America support the concept of a woman president. 


[1250] Legolas: In response to [1249]: 

Unless we are looking at long ago concepts of the Bell curve and other racial or sexual 

degredations then it should not even be a question of whether a women is or is not capable of 

being president. My response to Prairierose question of ‘when’ is that America will support 

the concept of a woman president when there is more gender equality at all local levels and 

in the universities and business institutions so as to allow women the opportunity to show 

their strength and rise to the occasion. Currently we are limited to very few ‘public’ women 

who have the resume and intelligence to occupy the position of president because they are 

refrained from the beginning. It is not the fault of women but society. So as to when i would 

hope in the near future but as for the next election it is sad that we have, in comparison, only 

two strong public women to choose from (Rice and Clinton) and both have done a wonderful 

job inspiring women. 

Message [1250] referenced by [1252] and [1273]. Next Message by Legolas is [1281]. 

[1251] Zone: Religion.... Re: [1234]: I believe that organized religion is a crutch for 

the weak minded and for those who can not overcome life’s shortfalls with their own mind. 

Religion was started to explain things that people were not yet able to explain. People do 

not know exactly how man came to live on this earth so there had to be Adam and Eve to 

explain it. There is the idea of heaven and hell because people do not want to think of the


idea that once someone dies they are unable to continue existence. It sounds a lot nicer if 

you think that when someone dies they live in some fairy tale in the sky, then thinking they 

are buried underground in a box. 

When you have to have some authority to tell you what is right and wrong, you are hiding 

from the fact that without the threat of hell you probably would not lead a very productive 

and kind life. Most people are selfish and need an incentive to be kind to their neighbor. 

They take the idea of going to heaven after death to justify their actions of being kind. I 

believe that the only way to live one’s life is to abide by the golden rule. But do not get 

confused and think that Christianity is the religion that came up with this novel idea. Many 

cultures and non-organized religions have lived by this rule long before Christianity took it 

as a catch phrase. 

Message [1251] referenced by [1253], [1254], and [1264]. Next Message by Zone is [1346]. 

[1252] Bubba: Rice as president. re: [1250] Rice as one of the potentials for 2008 It 

would be nice to have a (black, nonetheless!) woman candidate carrying the Republican 

nomination in 2008, but she has already denied it thoroughly. Something big would have to 

happen either to change her mind or, if she’s really planning on it after all, to give her public 

grounds for flip-flopping. 

See, for instance: 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4369986.stm 


[1253] Bob: You are getting into a touchy subject in [1251]. So if Adam and Eve were just 

made up, where did we come from? Also how it is that the earth is at the exact distance from 

the sun where our human bodies can survive? If the earth were even the slightest amount 

closer to the sun we would burn up, or freeze if we were further away. There just seems 

to be so many details put into place that allow us to survive that all of them happening by 

coincidence, as oppsosed to God creating them, is crazier than believing in Adam and Eve. 


[1254] Snowy: In response to Zone’s submission [1251] I would ask him if he thinks that 

Albert Einstien, C.S. Lewis, J.R. Tolkien, Jesus Christ, Buddah, Ghandi, Mother Theresa 

were weak minded people. 

Some of the most intelligent and enlightened minds who have affected this world believed 

in God or a higher power and had a belief in religion. It is not a crutch that they stood on, 

rather sound and committed beliefs that led them in the good lifes they lived. There are 

many who have lived good lives that do not have religious beliefs. There are anwsers to that 

phenomenon in religious texts. Such that we all have come from a greater power/being and 

that we still have a little of the knowledge with us when we are born. I truly believe that 

the majority of people have good intentions. I also truly believe that there is truth in many 

religions and that a reason why religoin is emphasized, as you say, is to offer incentive and 

hope. Yet it is true that there is something bigger than us out there, label as you will. And 

there is a reason why we are here on earth. 

It is weak minded to say that there is no reason why everything happened as it did. The 

earth in the perfect spot with the perfect composition so that it can sustain human life. That 


the sun that happened to be the perfect distance away as not to burn us, but to sustain us, 

everything is made up of something smaller than the human mind can see....and I could go on 

forever. How did it all happen. Yeah sum it up with your big bang theorem if you will...but 

honestly a close mind is weak and that is what you have shown with your submission trying 

to prove to the believers that they are wrong and claiming you are more intelligent/your mind 

is stronger than some of the greatest minds that have ever lived. 


[1257] BonzoIsGod: Re: Religion.... In response to the earlier submission [1253] about 

religion and Earth’s distance from the sun, it is a “convenient” response. It could be just as 

easily be argued that life only exists on Earth because of its distance from the sun, not that 

Earth’s distance from the sun had to be to support life, i.e. God did not place Earth at the 

correct distance to support life, the earth was at that distance already, so life then began. 

I don’t mean for this response to come off as anti-religious because there should be something 

to look forward to after death. But, it is also interesting to look at religions prior to 

Christianity and see the similarities between Roman pagan religions and Christianity (which 

supposedly began in Rome with the acceptance by Constantine). Don’t quote me on this 

because I’m a couple years out of Roman history, but I believe Romulus and Remus were to 

have been sent down a river to prevent their death (similar to the story of Moses). Jesus also 

has similarity to Mithras, a pagan god, in that both have the legend of being born to a virgin 

on December 25. 

Again, I am not trying to come across as anti-religious (some people have interpreted 

more than what I was saying), but the similarities are worth noting. 


[1258] Hans: deadlines for econ-5080 submissions. You are right, Claire, with your 

question [1256]. The deadlines for the submissions to econ-5080 are not very obvious. 

They are buried in the class schedule and not easy to find, and you need to remember your 

shift number. I will send everyone a grade summary which has the deadlines that apply to 

you. 

Hans. 


[1261] Prairierose: Econ 5080 Question and Answers Installment 2. Claire, 

In the syllabus it states that the Econ 5080 Questions and Answers Installment 2 should 

be ready at the beginning of class on November 10, 2005 in the copy center and on the web. 


[1262] Ash: re: religion. All this talk of religion versus science. It is funny that the one 

does not exist without the other. The mere fact that we wonder about our origin, prompting 

us to search for what we are made up of, how the world and the universe are configured, how 

a god, or some higher power put the things into motion and now here we are. Is it not the 

ever-reaching question of origin and purpose that pushes humanity to new heights? 

I wonder how many medical discoveries have been found with a scientist pondering the 

wonder of the human body God gave us. Or what was thought when we discovered the earth 

revolves around the sun.


C.S. Lewis said it best, “I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not 

only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.” 


[1264] Xerho: Zone, what are you talking about in [1251]? Are you talking about organized 

religion, religion as a whole, dogmatic beliefs? In the first part of [1251] you talk 

about the crutch religion is to many people who are not able to explain certain things. There 

is a logical argument to be had on the basis of the foolishness in believing something with 

no scientific proof. 

But later on you talk about YOUR beliefs in living the Golden Rule as being the way to 

live. “I believe that the only way to live one’s life is to abide by the golden rule”. [1251] 

That sure sounds like a profession of a religious belief to me. Religion goes well beyond the 

scope of mere biblical stories. Religion can be defined as “any specific system of belief and 

worship, often involving a code of ethics and a philosophy” (Webster’s) 

So what is it you are getting at? Because it’s certainly not religion, because you seem to 

profess one of your own. 


[1267] MrPink: The 2008 Election. I agree with Astclair’s comment [1180] “Hillary 

should waltz through the primaries and emerge as the democratic candidate...But is she 

electable? I would argue not, provided the Republicans put up a strong candidate.”. 

However I do think that the GOP has a strong candidate, dare I say even stronger then 

Rice, McCain, or Giuliani. Might I remind people of Mitt Romney? 

Tiny first raises the question of qualifications in comment [1072]. While I would like to 

believe that the president is elected based on qualification I think it is too idealistic. Candidates 

are more likely to be elected to president based on marketing, perception, appearance, 

and policy compromise. 

Mitt won governorship in Massachusetts, a democratic stronghold. And on a recent trip 

to Boston (about three weeks ago) I really got a sense that people there really liked him. 

I know he would get the Utah vote but he is just moderate enough to get the votes of 

people who think Hilary is too “tough”. 

For the record, if it were between Hillary and Mitt, I would vote for Hillary. 

-Mr. Pink 


[1270] Ernesto: In response to a few of the previous comments, for instance [1257]: We 

can all say what we want but none of us really know. It doesn’t do any good throwing around 

insults without a more postulated response. We all have a crutch and depend on something 

for life; parents, government, friends, food, oxygen, god, nature... We are all weak. There 

is nothing that any of us can do about that. We ultimately have very little control over our 

lives. Oh, and one more thing, Christianity came about long before the birth of Christ. The 

Old Testament is nothing more than prophecies of his coming, purpose, role, and mission on 

earth. 



[1271] Geo: Oh religion, the sweet controversy it is. 

Religion is not for the weak nor is it for the strong, it is a set of practiced ideas. Everyone 

has them, from the atheist to the hindu, from the muslim to the christian. Even if you 

consider yourself an agnostic you still have ideas and sentiments you hold to more strongly 

than others, and these ideas influence the way you live your life. Blaming religion for the 

world’s problems is a copout. 

Humans are to blame, of every kind, in every age, in every culture there have been murders, 

rapes, wars, etc. Blaming religion only catalyzes the problem through ideocentric 

arrogance. In fact, I would argue that religion possesses a greater capacity to fix the world’s 

problems than government does. People are far more loyal to the things they believe in religiously 

than they are to their government (simply belonging to a religious denomination 

does not make one religious by the way). Some form of order system or set of rules is necessary 

for peaceful humanity, regardless of what anyone says, people are more likely to adhere 

to principles or rules if they believe in them, hence religion. 

Most posts to this discussion have a very narrow understanding of what religion is, myself 

included. And to sit and argue with someone else’s values is pointless, they obviously hold 

to them for a reason, just like I do, and just like you do. It is impossible for anyone to fully 

understand why someone believes or feels like they do. 

I don’t think there is anything wrong with someone sharing his/her beliefs with another, 

whether that be atheism, buddhism, or marxism or any other belief. In fact I believe it is 

healthy. But as soon as the other person is done listening, it becomes immoral to continue. 

I am sorry this is so long, if you even read it. 

Geo. 


[1273] Thelonius: Legolas:A Woman President Re: [1250]: I couldnt disagree with 

you more...it isn’t society’s responsibility to institute anybody in a position of authority or 

privilege. Democracy is not a free ride, and society is not responsible. It is up to the citizens 

themselves, it is up to women, up to men, up to minorities, up to children, it is up to the 

individual to assert themself however they feel justified in doing so. Blaming society is 

absolutley absurd. This is a matter of, “no you can’t.”, “Oh, yes I can!” 


[1274] Robgodfell: The Messiah. Ernesto said 

“It doesn’t do any good throwing around insults without a more postulated response. We 

all have a crutch and depend on something for life.” 

I can only agree and comment that our rudeness on this list is starting to mimic the opinion 

pages of the Utah Daily Chronicle and that on its own merit is shameful. 

Attack a man’s comments and questions; never himself unless it is his character which 

gives cause for comment, and again only in a method which invites possibility not destruction 

via “you’re wrong, you Republican apologist.” 

Futhermore concerning Christianity:

Ernesto also said that: 


“Christianity came about long before the birth of Christ. The Old Testament is nothing 

more than prophecies of his coming, purpose, role, and mission on earth.” 

Okay. Now for my question: Being one of the tribe which calls the Old Testament the 

“Tanach” which is short for “Torah (Five books of Moses), Neviim (the profits), and Ketuvim 

(the writings)” I am extremely curious as to how we’ve arrived at the conclusion that it is 

nothing more than prophecies concerning Christ and his “role and mission on earth?” 

The only mention of what we call the “Moshiach (messiah)” – which by the way is never 

expressly mentioned in any of the writings of the Old Testament (it came to fruition in the 

diasporas and concomitant writings of the Rabbinic Studies known as Talmud and via a 

medieval Rabbi know as Rambam and his 13 principles of faith) is that a man well versed in 

Torah, a great Military Leader, who will ingather the tribes and clear the world of heresy and 

sin, and will –obviously– be a great political leader descended from King David (Jeremiah 

23:5 & Isaiah 11:2-5). 

The five books of Moses however, contain no mention of the Jewish concept of a Moshiach, 

they are a set of ethical guidelines concerning 613 commandments (most of us are 

only familiar with the Big Ten. . . kind of like football I’d imagine) 2/3rds of which concern 

rites, logistics, sacrifice, etc. concerning the Beit Mekdash (or the Holy Temple in 

Jerusalem-which being destroyed hardly lends to the observance of those commandments). 

–these come in the 3rd through 5th books: “Vayiqra” (Leviticus), “Bamidbar” (Numbers) 

and “Devarim” (Deuteronomy) after the creation stories of “Bereishit” (Genesis) and “Shemot” 

(Exodus): such as Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, Noah, Abraham, and of course 

Moses leading the Children of Israel from Egypt in Exodus, etc, etc. but no Messiah. 

It is said amongst our Mystics that within each of us exists the ability to be the Messiah 

(very similar to the Hindu concept of “atman”) and only when we all take the time to truly 

participate in the Shabbat by disconnecting ourselves from the act of creation and creating 

(electricity, tvs, phones, work etc.) and truly allow ourselves to simply be one with creation 

and the beauty that is our lives and relations will the messiah already have arrived in each of 

us. 


[1275] Thelonius: The Messiah Robgodfell [1274]— 

10 Points, man. Keep talking.. 


[1276] Thelonius: Religion Re: [1262]: Oh...why must you all quarell with one another? 

Can’t we all pretend we love each other? 


[1280] Claire: Question on submission. Hans, In the syllabus is states that during this 

time we can submit a Chapter 12 question. I am mistaken? Thanks, Claire 


[1283] Mason: Term Papers. I was wondering if anyone else is having a hard time still 

trying to find a group for the term papers. I still don’t have a group after trying several times 


trying to get into one. I fhtere is anyone that still has room in their group I would love to 

join it. Email me back if you do please. Thank you. 


[1285] Hans: In response to [1280]: The only homework questions which are accepted 

right now are questions 552-585, which is chapter Nineteen. If you don’t have any submissions 

between the midterms in yet the only option to fill this deadline is to make two 

submissions from chapter Nineteen. Only one of them will count for your homework grade. 

Submissions on Thursday November 17 before the exam will not count for this deadline. 

Hans. 


[1287] Snickers: archive? Will you be posting another archieve like you did for the last 

exam of all the answers to the questions submitted 


[1288] Ace: term papers. Hans, If I was to write on a chapter, could I respond to someone 

else’s term paper about my same chapter? 


[1289] Prairierose: Group. Mason, 

We have room for an extra person in our group. So far we have only three people in our 

group, Cdew, Karlwho, and myself (prairierose). You are welcome to join. We are in the 

process of setting up a meeting time to discuss the paper. My schedule and Cdew’s schedule 

are both pretty flexible. We are able to meet during the day Monday through Thursday and 

the weekends are open for both of us. Please email me back a time that works for you. 

Thank You, 

Prairierose 


[1293] Thugtorious: Pisciphiliac, Can anybody else join your study group? I am looking 

to get as much studying in as possible for the exam. 

Thanks! 


[1294] Hans: More details about the study group exemption. Here is an attempt to 

clarify and operationalize my exemption for study groups from message [1248]: 

If you organize a study session and announce it on this list here at least 24 hours in 

advance and invite everybody else to join you, then you are allowed to take the exam on 

Thursday. 

If the same study session has 4 organizers with GPA above 3.5, then all of you are allowed 

to take the Thursday exam, but the expectation is of course that all four of you do show up 

for the study session. 

Hans. 


[1295] PAE: study group. I would like to get a study session going this Sunday, probably 

in the afternoon or evening. If anybody is interested let me know.



[1296] MrPink: Exam 2 study session. Just throwing out another time... 

I will be studying Saturday at Roasting (320 E. 400 S.) from 3-5 pm. I will have a blue 

jacket. :) 


[1297] Thugtorious: Mr. Pink. Mr. Pink, I’ll have a pink rose attached to my lapel ;-) 


[1304] Overlord: Re: religion. Re: [1276]: I knew this was going to get out of hand. 

Anyway I will elaborate a little now that it has been opened up. I like facts so lets look at 

those. 

1.There are more religions than I have fingers to count them on. 

2.All of them can not be the correct religion. (If you believe that God will bring you to 

heaven because of your religion, I think you are crazy) 

3.Either the believers or the non-believers are right, both can not be. 

4.If you believe in God then you must also believe that God gave us these amazing brains 

to think for our selves, and not be persuaded by religious leaders. (Back to my original topic 

of right and wrong) 

5.We all have the capability of doing good and doing bad. It is the choices we make that 

make us unique and separate us from one another. 

6. All religions were created by HUMANS, Humans are flawed so our religions must be 

flawed as well. 

Now for a brain teaser, What is God. Is god a being? Is god a force, is god nature? Is 

god physics, chemistry, or science all together. Or is God a creation to help man to feel 

comfortable with death? The options are endless. I CHOOSE to believe in God, I don’t care 

who believes in God or not, Because my beliefs don’t require them to. 

Name the movie??? 

Message [1304] referenced by [1317] and [1327]. Next Message by Overlord is [1496]. 

[1317] Nazgul: The Matrix of Religion. In response to Overlord’s message [1304], I 

believe God is a symbol, and for everyone that symbol holds a different meaning, religion is 

no exception. Every culture has their own interpretation and I don’t think any one person can 

say that an individuals interpretation is wrong. Organized religion is a way for individuals 

who interpret God in the same way to come together and be validated. 

I don’t care who believes in god or not, because like Morpheus from the Matrix, “My 

beliefs don’t require them to.” 


[1322] TriPod: Personal contact with class members If you are trying to contact someone 

in your group please do not send it to the general Econ-5080 email. We are getting way 

to many emails and many of us do not have time to continue reading emails about groups. 

Please use the persons pseudonym@marx.econ.utah.edu and it will save alot of us time. 

An example would be tripod@marx.econ.utah.edu 


Thanks 


[1327] Gza: response to Overload. Overload [1304] has some good points. I can agree 

that religions are created by humans. However, even if what we think is not created by 

humans, it is still subject to human perception. Since humans are flawed (something we can 

all agree on), than even if (and this is a huge if that I personally do not believe in) religion 

or religions were created by God, the teachings, practices, and everything associated with 

religion would still be subjected to subjective interpretation. From this perspective, one 

might argue that in a sense even if God created and established religion, it is subjectively 

and existentially created by humans. Now many would disagree to the leap from religions 

dependent upon subjective interpretation and creation, but in a sense everything we interpret 

is “recreated” in our minds through our senses, biases, historical context, culture, psyche, 

and many more things. At the least, God (if there is God or Gods) has to leave it up to 

individual beings to interpret stimuli as they (also “we”) want and do. To a large extent, many 

are not even aware of their subjective paradigms that shape and interpret data. An example of 

this can be “unconscious prejudice ” and “Freudian slips.” I am not justifying discrimination 

or snorting enough cocaine that could kill a cow, but there is something to the theory that 

there is a part of human psyche that affects what one interprets on an subconscious level. 

But I do not know the movie “Overload” is referring to. 


[1331] Robgodfell: Deprivation of Good. Considering the nature of the conversation, 

we’d not fault a man for thinking he could adequately equate something as powerful as a 

concept which is supposed to encompass all of life as we know it and all of life that we 

haven’t even the tiniest inkling about to a matter of words like “flawed” and “crazy,” or 

myself as I attempt to wax deific. 


[1332] Hans: Status of Installment 2. Installment 2 will not be ready for class tonight. 

There were many submissions in recent days, and I am trying to understand what you are 

saying and give you the feedback you deserve. This takes time. I assume Installment 2 will 

be available early tomorrow morning on the www, and some time during the day by the 

Copy Center. 

Hans. 


[1333] Rudy: Exam 2 Study Session. Comrades, I can’t make it to either of Michael’s 

study sessions and though Mr. Pink’s study session intrigues me, I’d like to go to the football 

game that afternoon. 

I’d like to meet Saturday at high noon at the Mariott Library, I’ll be at the first floor 

entrance near the media center. I’ll be furrowing my brow in confusion over a thick text and 

several loose papers 


[1339] Ziggy: student health insurance. The student government is currently asking 

student opinion on what to do about the health insurance plan. (It looks to me like they think


the best solution is to make it mandatory for all students.) I bet some perspectives from 

people studying Marx could produce some worthwhile alternatives. 

First Message by Ziggy is [460]. 

[1340] Guerito: Student Health Insurance. Ziggy [1139] brought up an important 

topic in regards to student health insurance that could essentially effect all of us on campus. 

The issue is that the current university health insurance policy is failing with an increase in 

premiums and a decrease in services. I would recommend reading up on the subject and 

voicing your opinion to ASUU, this can be done at www.ustudents.com 

Ziggy stated, “It looks to me like they think the best solution is to make it (health insurance) 

mandatory for all students.” It also appears to me this is the direction things are headed 

with a couple probable solutions: 1. All students would be required to have university health 

insurance which would improve the rising premiums and declining services with a larger 

number of policy holders but increase costs to all students. 

2. Students would have to either prove they already have insurance or purchase insurance 

through the university. This is the “Hard Waiver” option referred to below. 

Currently 80% of students are covered by insurance through work or parents, 7% of 

students use the university insurance, and the remaining students are either unsure whether 

they are covered or carry no policy at all. It costs about $1,100 a year for university health 

insurance so it could prove to be an unnecessary cost if you don’t need it. It should definitely 

provoke discussion. I submitted the following to ASUU for what it is worth: 

I will be the first to agree that student health insurance is sub-par and in need of attention. 

I looked into it as a possibility prior to getting married and it wasn’t a good option. I think 

ASUU is doing well to address the situation. However, I question whether it is the responsibility 

of the student body as a whole to take on the burden of improving or attempting to 

solve the matter. 

Increasing everyone’s cost to solve the problem would be going overboard and enrage the 

large majority of students on campus. The numbers just don’t fit to support this option. Why 

should every student pay for a service that only 7% are currently using with an estimated 

15-20% usage if the policy is instigated? I understand that premiums are increasing while 

services are decreasing but that can be seen across the entire insurance industry. Everybody 

is effected by it and you simply have to individually fork out the extra cash. Just like filling 

up your car, oil prices are currently outrageous but that doesn’t mean I have to pay an extra 

fee at the pump to lower the cost of gasoline for somebody else. I strongly oppose the idea of 

raising student fees across the board; it would unjustly pick an already empty pocket of the 

majority of students. The biggest winner in this situation would be the insurance company 

because the vast number of the 80% currently insured would stay with their current provider 

and their university policy would go unused. 

If anything is to be changed, I see the best approach as being built around the “Hard 

Waiver” option. Everyone on campus would be covered, student health insurance would 

improve along with a more acceptable premium as the number of policyholders increases, 

and those who are already covered by insurance won’t be billed twice. The only students 

who might be unhappy would be the ones who are currently uninsured and would have a 


new bill to pay, but that new bill is just one of those fun aspects of life. All of us who are 

currently paying that bill are well acquainted with how fun it is and we don’t want to have it 

doubled. 


[1343] Hans: Installment 2 available. Installment 2 is on the web now. This is the 

official source: if the question is answered in Installment 2 the you will be responsible for in 

the exam. Perhaps there are some designated exam questions in the Annotations which did 

not make it into Installment 2, you are responsible for those too. 

The screen version is at 

http://marx.economics.utah.edu/das-kapital/pdf/screen/i2.pdf 

and the version to print out, which will also be available at the copy center, is 

http://marx.economics.utah.edu/das-kapital/pdf/l2mo/i2.pdf 

I will let you know when this version can be picked up at the copy center. 

Hans. 


[1344] Hans: Installment 2 available at Copy Center. Installment 2 can be purchased at 

the Union Copy Center now. They are in the East Wing of the Union building, ground floor, 

their tel is 587 7928. 

Hans. 


[1352] Jerm: All this talk of Religion. During this discussion of religion I have heard 

a lot of different things that I have not heard before. This is the problem with discussing 

religion, there are so many varying opinions on the matter. When it comes to religion I think 

many people would agree to disagree. 

Overlord said that the problem with religion is that they were all created by human beings. 

How are we suppose to know that? Most religions out there claim to be Gods church and that 

their church was created by him. I myself do believe in God and I also believe that he could 

have a church on earth. However, it is up to us whether or not we follow or believe. It also 

up to us to make to effort to seek out his religion (or religions). Some choose not to believe 

and others choose to believe. Whether we believe or not, most religions do a lot of good for 

our communities. For some people, going to church is all they have for comfort. For other 

people going to church is a social thing where they can meet and make new friends. 


[1357] Michael: Michael Will be Late. I’m running behind but I should make it to 

campus between 9:30 and 10:00. 

Very sorry, Michael 


[1362] Jingle: Re: Religion.... RE: [1254]: My view on religion is that I believe in god, 

but I do not believe in the structure of organized religion. I feel that we are all individuals 

who believe in different ways. I also feel that people should not be told in how to believe in


god or who god is, and that is what organized religion does. This is probably why zone made 

the comment about people having a weak mind, because people who belong to an organized 

religion are really not making up their own mind to what they trully believe; they are just 

being told what to believe. 


[1364] Daleman: In response to Zone’s Comments. It sounds like ZONE has a few 

issues of his/her own to overcome.=20 Lashing out at religion shows that ZONE is not able to 

overcome life’s issues with his/her own mind and instead chooses to insult that which he/she 

does not understand. I welcome a healthy debate on religion but only if it is a intelligent 

constructive discussion. Continuing on your current path of spewing incorrect religious 

principles and insulting millions of people who practice organized religion will be your 

down fall in life. 

The week minded know they are week and rather than seeking to be stronger they choose 

to stay week and insult those trying to become strong. 

Message [1364] referenced by [1371], [1378], [1380], [1393], and [1473]. Next Message by Daleman is [1365]. 

[1366] SueGirl: Question about submissions. Hello Hans, 

I attended the study session with Michael today and he said that the 2 submissions we 

were required to do before the second exam are no longer being accepted. This confused 

me because I understood that we had until the first session (Monday) of the week of the 2nd 

exam to turn in submissions. Was this incorrect? Being busy with other schoolwork as well, 

I had hoped to complete my second submission today, but is it too late now? Are chapter 19 

submissions still being accepted? 

Michael also indicated that many people in our class have not emailed a second submission. 

Is there a way we could have until Monday to turn in our second submission? 

Thanks very much, 

SueGirl 


[1367] Hans: Question about submissions. Hello SueGirl, 

the deadline for submissions for chapter 19 was Wednesday, Nov 9. See Annotations, p. 

584. This was also the last opportunity to meet your requirement of two regular homework 

submissions between the midterms, as I said in my announcement [1285] on econ-5080. No 

regular homeworks are accepted on Monday, see Annotations, p. 585. Sorry about that. 

Hans. 


[1371] Zone: In response to Zone’s Comments. Re: [1364]: Hi Daleman and others 

whose feathers have been ruffled by my quick post on religion. First, I wanted to thank 

Jingle for explaining my thought on the weak mindedness of people much better than I did 

in my post. Second I don’t think we need to take personal shots at each other Daleman, I did 

not attack anyone personally on the post and I don’t think my ideas on organized religion 

will be my downfall in life. Maybe my downfall in Utah, but not life. I would love to have 

an intelligent conversation on religion, but the econ 5080 mailing list is probably not the best 

place for it. We have already over saturated it with these religion posts and I think that only 


more childish personal attacks will result from it. Sorry if my beliefs causes such heartache 

to you all, maybe in the next life I will be more sensitive. I think Reginald Denning might 

have said it best, “Can’t we all just get along.” 


[1372] Zone: Re: In response to Zone’s Comments. Re: [1371]: Sorry, I meant Rodney 

King not Regionald Denning in my quote. I don’t want to give anymore more ammunition 

to attack my intelligence. 


[1373] Surferboy: Re: Religion.... Re: [1362]: It’s interesting that people have such 

diverse opinions in such a strong mormon state. I as well believe that religion is for the 

week minded. People simply want others to make decisions for them, and religion does 

that for many. I believe that religion is a just an exploitative factor in the lives of those that 

choose to participate in any given religion. All religions are after only one thing, MONEY! 

The focus on tithing is very heavily weighted in most religions which allows them to oppress 

and control people. 


[1378] McDugall: In response to Zone’s Comments. Re: [1364]: Daleman, 

I am not going to question your faith in organized religion. However, from your harsh and 

overbearing comments toward zone I would like to address your observation of faith. We are 

all human beings, we should not make judgments based on someone’s religious preference 

or faith. It is exactly this demeanor that you present in your email which has led to wars 

started in the name of God that has led humanity down a dreadful path. Take a moment, 

don’t condemn people for their preferences, embrace them for they can help you embrace 

your faith to a higher level. In all western religious books, humans are Gods children. Zone 

is not your child and you should not take it upon yourself to criticize his views. It is God 

who will take care of his children and address any issues he or she may have. One thing 

observers of organized religion should practice more frequently is the tolerance of other 

people who have different beliefs. We are all human, created by the same God, material, 

cosmic material (if you do not believe in God) do not condemn others for their beliefs, live 

your own life they way you choose and allow others to do the same. Look back over the 

centuries and observe the brutality caused by the lack of acceptance in differences, do not 

allow this trend to continue. You do not even have to look back too far, history is repeating 

itself as we speak. 

Message [1378] referenced by [1380], [1393], and [1473]. Next Message by McDugall is [1678]. 

[1380] Dange: Re: Religion Response. McDugall, while reading your response to Daleman 

[1378] I felt like I was sitting in church, “It is God who will take care of his children.” 

Very appropriate for a Sunday.... 

Is God a He? How do you know God is not a She? However, McDugall, I do appreciate 

your comment that we should all be tolerant of others’ beliefs. 

Daleman [1364] said, “The week minded know they are week and rather than seeking to 

be stronger they choose to stay week and insult those trying to become strong.” 

It’s hard to get your point when you are using “week” - which is a period of seven days - 

rather than “weak”, meaning feeble. I’m confused....



[1388] Iblindone: Test location. Does anyone know where the test location is going to 

be on Monday I have yet to find out. Any help in this matter would be much appreciated. 


[1390] Tink: Winnie-the-pooh likes to think think think. So if being weak-minded 

is following the decisions of others, being strong-minded would then be what, just doing 

whatever the hell you felt like? This is greatly lacking in purpose and substance. Come on 

Surferboy, I know you articulate yourself MUCH better than this. 

Doing something because it is the opposite of or NOT what other people or organization 

want you to do is just as unimpressive as doing things because those same people or organzation 

want you to. Its the very same action. You are being compelled to act by someone 

elses thoughts, whether it is to act in agreement or in purposeful disagreement. While I 

fully admit some people may live it as such, religion isn’t about being told how to think, 

its about ways of thinking. There are sheep everywhere, it is not a phenomena exclusive to 

religion. I’m pretty sure I’ve been told what to think since the day I entered kindergarten and 

it continues with my further education at the University of Utah. Fortunately enough, I am 

aware that this occurs at school, church, work, everywhere I encounter people (especially an 

organization) and I have a ‘strong’ enough mind to examine what I am presented with and 

apply to my life as I see fit. 

And personally, I feel that calling religious people ‘weak’ shows an insecurity and fear 

that unless they maintain this level of belligerence, the accusers may fall prey to the system 

of religion. 


[1393] Snowy: Acceptance. As I read these submissions I was astonished. We are all 

different. None of us know completely what another person has gone through in life. No 

one knows their thoughts or the way they were taught as a child. We all learn so much 

differently that I could get something completely different out of the same experience than 

the next person. If I was born in the same house and gone through the same experiences 

as an atheist, who is to say that I wouldn’t be an atheist. By contrast, I have a friend with 

Atheist parents and his way of rebelling was by joining a church. Concerning the blacks in 

slavery, I have always wondered if the Slave Masters ever thought of how easily it could’ve 

been for them to have been born in the body that they were abusing. 

Because of the mired of variables in life, accepting other people is, for me, the solution. 

Accepting others has increased my knowledge and left me with friends. I agree with Mc- 

Dugall’s words [1378] to accept everyone. Yet, many, as well as me find it hard to always 

do, even if you know that it is right. Dange displayed this [1364] with his response, that he 

appreciates McDugall’s comment on being tolerant and in the next sentence he displays intolerance 

towards Daleman for misspelling the word weak. This hypocrisy we are all prone 

to is saddening. 

As I go through life I am more and more amazed at what I do not know. One thing I will 

never understand is the perspective of another because I am not that person. I find strength 

in knowing that God will be the omnipotent (all knowing) merciful judge. In saying that I 

know that many do not believe this way, but for me, I believe it and it gives me peace. 



[1409] Hans: Term Paper Discussions. Term paper discussions are usually only admitted 

Thursday through Saturday, see p. 585 of the Annotations for more details, they must be 

sent to das-kapital@marx.econ.utah.edu and their question number is derived from that of 

the term paper itself by doubling the first digit, i.e., discussions of term paper 815 must have 

question number 8815. 

This said, I manually corrected the three term paper discussions which were just received, 

therefore there is no need to resubmit them, but further term paper discussions must follow 

the above rules, otherwise you will not get credit for them. 

Hans. 


[1411] Michael: Exam 2. All, 

Reminder: Exam 2 will be held in BuC 106, our usual room. 

Those who took the exam on Monday: 

Be sure to pick up your copy of the exam; you need these for the resubs. As of yesterday, 

there are about 10 still in my mailbox. In case your locating my mailbox has been 

the problem, it is on the third floor of BuC, as far east as one can go before entering the 

KGB. My particular box is on the far left and middle of the set. Finally, if the problem 

is logistical (you live far from campus and this is your only class, etc.), send me an email 

(michael@marx.econ.utah.edu) and I’ll send you an electronic copy of your exam. 

Thanks, Michael 

First Message by Michael is [43]. 

[1412] Mullin: Why do we all pay? This past Monday was a Jazz vs. Knicks basketball 

game that I had the misfortune of attending. The game was very sloppy so much so that the 

home crowd was booing the pathetic play of the Jazz. Though the game was painful to watch 

it was some comfort knowing that I wasn’t the individual who had purchased the courtside 

tickets for around $400.00. I am an avid sports fan yet this caused me to sit back and ask 

myself, “why is it that we are so willing to pay such outlandish fees to watch sports, movies, 

etc. (entertainment)?” 

Might it be that we have fallen victim to the capitalists who not only overwork and underpay 

us but then have the guts to overcharge us for entertainment. Who do you suppose 

has enough money to finance these ventures? Is it your co-worker or the CEOs of the huge 

corporations? Of course it is the latter and as a result they laugh all the way to the bank from 

every aspect of this relationship. We have been “brainwashed” to believe that these activities 

are essential to our social existence and happiness as we know it. But, is it really? If your 

answer is “yes” then I would suggest that you (I am included) are contributing to the attitude 

of the capitalist of draining us of all of our limited resources at every opportunity. 

Is there a solution? Not that I know of, at least in the current society within which we 

live. We are actively and oft times innocently falling victim to the over eager and selfseeking 

investors. Do I place the fault solely on the capitalists? No, because these would 

remove us from the accountability of making our own decisions. My concern lies in how far


and ridiculous entertainment prices will reach before enough of us our convinced that this 

can go on no longer and we stop paying. 


[1413] Legolas: Re: Why do we all pay? I was very much intrigued by what Mullin said 

in [1412]. It is the question i often ponder when looking at our ever increasing capitalist society. 

It reminded me of the debate going on with Walmart where even their own employees 

can’t afford adequate health care so they want to increase the minimum wage, why? to keep 

them at low paying jobs unable to afford such entertainment at $400.00 a seat basketball 

tickets and instead are forced to rely on the capitalist companies in which they work to give 

them such, which eventually is taking away the free will of the masses. 


[1436] Daleman: $400 seats and Wal-mart. I apologize in advance for pissing anyone 

off with the comment. 

Wal-Mart employees are exploited because they let themselves be. Workers will always 

be exploited unless they are willing to take some risk and become a capitalist, and start 

exploiting someone else for their own gain. 

Message [1436] referenced by [1440] and [1458]. Next Message by Daleman is [1474]. 

[1440] Snickers: RE: [1436] $400 seats and Wal-mart. Okay im not at all for the 

business practices that Wal-Mart is now turning our great country into a do anything for 

cheaper prices like low wages, no benefits or medical, telling suppliers to lower prices or 

they will go elsewhere, umm taking away all the mom and pop stores that make a city and 

let’s say the one that bothers their me the most, regulation, like they won’t sell birth control 

there through their medical store, no bad lyric CD’s not selling books that are controversal, 

who are they to say what we can and can’t buy. Back to your topic on employees exploiting 

themselves, have you noticed who works at Wal-Mart 80% of the people there are elderly 

workers that probably retired and lost money in 9/11 or didnt have enough money to sustain 

their livelihood. Do you think those elderly want to work or have to work? Yes some could 

go get a better job that is to say that they can drive or have means of driving. It takes money 

to take risks and if you’re working at Wal-Mart then to me it seems that they don’t have the 

means to take risks. 


[1445] Nazgul: Snickers umm. I just read Snickers post [1440] regarding the business 

practices at Wal-Mart, it was like nails screeching down a chalk board, sorry Snickers. The 

use of “um” and “like” is often used when one is talking and they don’t realize it, when 

you use it in a written document to express your beliefs, you weaken your entire position. 

You sound more like a stereotypical “Valley Girl” than an educated college student. You’ve 

made some intelligent postings in the past, but this one sounds sloppy and is lacking. The 

Wal-Mart debate has so many strong issues that if you really feel passionate about it, I think 

you could of come up with a better posting. 

Your question of “who are they to say what we can and can’t buy” in reference to Wal- 

Mart “like” not selling books or CD’s with controversial or bad lyrics or “like” not selling 

you birth control, makes no sense. Who do you suggest should be making those decisions? 

Should a national board be established to regulate what every business can and can’t sell, 

should Wal-Mart cater to your specific tastes while ignoring the major preferences of those 


in their demographics? Censorship in business is a whole another debate, you could have 

made some great points about this, but your entire lead up to it was “ummm” confusing. 

I enjoy reading the econ posts, but feel cheated when people throw things on for the sake 

of meeting a requirement, rather than putting thought behind it. 


[1452] Snickers: RE: Snickers umm. In response to Nazgul or fool [1445], I did not 

make that post just for the sake of meeting a requirement I have already met my requirements 

so that statement is absolutley false. This was a response to a free disscusion and i can use 

any style i feel pertinant. Would you rather me say “irraticating” all the mom and pop stores, 

does that make you happy. I wanted to respond in a less sofisticated style cause thats how 

the question was given. As I see it you didn’ even respond to the question that was posted 

just a reaction to my “less educated style”. Major Economics, Minor in Business and last 

year and Academic ALL-AMERICA with a 3.8 gpa, all while playing baseball the whole 

year. So mabye your statement of me being a “Valley Girl” seems pretty un-educated. So 

my question to you is who is the one less educated the one who answers the question or the 

one who just responds to what I wrote? 


[1454] TriPod: Re: Snickers umm. Re: [1452]: To Snickers and Nazgul; 

Stop all the personal digs. I hate reading about them and I bet the class does also. If you 

would like communicate you can write directly to each other. 


[1455] MrPink: Re: Snickers umm RE: [1454]: I second that. 


[1456] Nazgul: Snickers strikes back. My last post was not meant as a commentary on 

Snickers intellect as a whole, I specifically stated that she has made some very intelligent 

posts in the past, however, I stand by the fact that the post made in regards to Wal-Mart was 

substandard and did not in any way reflect a good argument. I have no need to attack your 

personal character, nor do I want to, however, please do me the favor and reread what you 

posted. Even though this is a free discussion, if you are going to take a stand on an issue, 

make your point clear. 


[1457] Bubba: Hinckley Journal of Politics is accepting student paper submissions. 

With Hans’ permission, I’ll announce on behalf of the student-composed review board for 

the U of U’s Hinckley Journal of Politics that the journal is accepting student research papers 

on any political topics. Below are the guidelines for anyone who’s interested. There’s a cash 

reward for those who make it in, but it’s especially useful for resumes, as in the case of 

applying to grad school. You can submit up to three. Just turn it in to someone at the 

Hinckley office listed below. 

–Bubba 

PS – “political economy” is especially worth a try if anyone has something besides a 

group term paper


Submission Guidelines for the 2006 Hinckley Journal of Politics The Hinckley Journal of 

Politics strives to publish scholarly papers of exceptional caliber, promoting the intellectual 

talents and understanding of University students in the field of political science. Contributing 

articles should address pertinent issues by illuminating key problems and potential solutions, 

adhering to the highest standards of political research and analysis. The Journal seeks 

to cover issues ranging from local to international political concerns, embracing diverse perspectives 

and a variety of analytical approaches. With this publication the Hinckley Institute 

hopes to encourage reader involvement in the intriguing world of politics. 

Submissions should adhere to the following guidelines: 

• Include a cover page listing: 

- Title of paper 

- General paper topic (e.g. international relations, national, state and local etc.) 

- Author’s name, full address, phone and email • Do NOT include the author’s name on 

any subsequent pages. 

• The body of each submission should: 

- Include the title at the top of the first page 

- Have page numbers, 12-point font, and one-inch margins 

- Be formatted in a single column and printed on single-sided paper 

- Use APA references throughout, including a bibliography 

- Remain between 10-35 pages but no longer, please 

Submissions not meeting these guidelines may require further editing before being considered, 

or may be rejected. 

Please also note the following: 

• Submission of papers with topics relevant to or addressing Utah and National Issues, 

are especially encouraged 

• Papers addressing political issues from all undergraduate disciplines are welcome 

• Papers are being submitted to an academic journal, and are therefore expected to meet 

the general standards of academic scholarship. Please ensure that the tone, voice, format, 

references, and other elements employed in your paper are of an academic quality 

SUBMISSION DUE DATE: Thursday, December 8, 2005 

Please submit all papers to: Hinckley Institute of Politics OSH 253•581-8501 

Hinckley Journal of Politics: Editors 

Jen Lambert- Phone 232-1893 Email jenmantyla@hotmail.com 

Logan Sisam- Phone 635-6434 Email lps1@utah.edu 


[1458] Pete: Re: $400 seats and Wal-mart. Daleman: 


You’ve got to be kidding with your [1436], right. 

I just can’t wait until you are retired and have to go back to work. I can’t wait until your 

feet hurt because you are standing there in your orthapedic shoes hour after hour, saying, 

“Welcome to Walmart” with your dentures ready to slip out because your can’t afford denture 

cream. 

Our precious elderly deserve better than your short sided comment. You little whipper 

snapper. 


[1459] Nazgul: Fools and Wal-Mart. Euripides made the statement, “Talk sense to a 

fool and he calls you foolish”, and so do the top executives at Wal-Mart. Sam Walton, the 

founder of Wal-Mart, trained individuals to be “merchants not just employees”. He gave 

employees confidence and security which helped them to become better workers. The “Wal- 

Mart” way was a business practice that designed to make the customer feel at home by 

going beyond customers expectations and helping people make a difference. This slogan 

made the customers feel important and feel part of the store, not just a worker within it. 

It was Sams business practices that formed the labor-community relationship that is now 

lacking in today’s Wal-Mart since Walton’s death. 

One of the major issues now in the Wal-Mart case is the constant expansion of its stores 

and the subsequent impact on the communities. As a business entity, Wal-Mart has an economic, 

legal, ethical and philanthropic responsibility to society. Economically, Wal-Mart 

delivers products at a low cost to its consumers. Legally many find fault with some of Wal- 

Marts practices in its overseas factories and in price wars with local merchants. Ethically, the 

low wage rates and poor benefits have been a major concern of many as well as the negative 

impact on local businesses. 

Consumer demand is what drives the “mom and pop” stores out of business, not necessarily 

Wal-Mart. For many opponents of Wal-Mart, their goal is simply to stop the expansion 

of big businesses, however, many are blinded to the positive effects a company like Wal- 

Mart could offer in their community. That stated I enjoy the benefits of lower priced goods 

from Wal-Mart, I don’t agree with the means to which the low prices are obtained. Wages is 

something that will always be low because that is the nature of the industry, however, working 

conditions should not be. The loyalty that was once shared by employees of Wal-Mart 

has been replaced, and disloyalty in any organization can be detrimental to its core structure. 

Wal-Mart may be reaping the benefits of its practices now, however, they are foolish if they 

believe the current standard at which they operate will sustain them through continual media 

scandals. 


[1461] Thelonius: Deprivation of Good. Re: [1331]: Rob... 

“My point is this. Nowhere in life have we ever been handed a complete and total truth 

from which we can draw all inspiration, knowledge, direction, ethic or spirituality.” 

The Origin of Species shows us where life originated...Physics allows us to cognate how 

matter behaves, don’t you think these are good places to start? 

Next Message by Thelonius is [1463].


[1463] Thelonius: Re: Snickers umm-Tripod. To Tripod/Snickers- 

We are at a school of higher learning, and ought to be challenging eachother intellectually 

as much as possible, for it is to our benefit. Growth and learning comes from challenge and 

argument, so does edge, grit and conviction. Nazgul was perfectly justified in her critique 

of Snickers submission and her critique was not malicious, but even apologetic. I agree, 

Snickers submission was painful, spelling (yes, we all make spelling errors), but this is 

Econ 5080. Snickers ought to embrace the critique, though it might strum my ego a bit I 

would embrace the critique. In my opinion, after reading Snickers submission as well as 

her response to Nazgul, it sounds like she plays baseball, pops gum and hangs out in malls 

and I wouldn’t give her criticism of Wal-Mart a shred of credibility. I like to see that we 

are critiquing eachother...it’s the growth process, if you don’t want to read it...don’t read it. 

Capische? 

To snickers and nazgul; 

Stop all the personal digs. I hate reading about them and I bet the class does 

also. If you would like communicate you can write directly to eachother. 


[1464] Avatar: Bunny Care. So, I got a bunny for my birthday. Anyone past or present 

bunny owners out there have some advice on the best way to care for it, or paper train it? It 

needs to be an indoor bunny. It’s too cute for outside. 

-A 


[1465] Thelonius: Bunny Care. Re: [1464]: Bunny? You got a Bunny? Please, tell us 

more, I can’t wait... 


[1466] Robgodfell: Hot Dogs, with or without the bun? T asked: 

“The Origin of Species shows us where life originated...Physics allows us to cognate how 

matter behaves, don’t you think these are good places to start?” 

I read the Origin of the Species as telling us how life evolves, not where it originated. 

So maybe a better title would have been “How’d we get this Species thing.” Not that I’m 

going to write Darwin about it, he has a tendency to get real pissy when I bring up stylistic 

suggestions, if you know what I mean. “It’s about the content, not the decorations,” he 

screams at me. “But what about the evolution of pretty colors for attracting interest and 

widespread. . . ” His hands are amazingly strong around my throat for a dude dead a hundred 

plus years. 

In conjunction with the physics, I think this plays a crucial role in understanding the how 

of life. (If you want the creation thing then it becomes the how of God.) 

But, it doesn’t tell us, the why, the what for, the what to. The sciences you are referring 

to lead us to understand structures and interactions of our molecules. They fill a physical 

bound but are utterly spiritless. That said, after years of claiming atheism, through rationality 

I’ve come to a belief in the divine (one not so bound by the vindictivness of many of our 

religious stories however)...and I’ve been involved with religion since my conception, but 


only the beauty of my physical surroundings and the incipient knowledge of how they exist 

gave me a doorway to appreciate the concept of God. I can’t look at a nebula, the birthpalce 

of stars, from the Hubble Telescope and not feel a power so much greater than myself. 

Apparently then, they (Darwin and Physics) were great places to start. But they cannot 

be ends within themselves, only complementary goods. Physics without spirituality (godbased, 

or pluralistic human loving based whatever) is like the hot dog without the bun: 

Totally edible, but nowhere quite as filling. 

Robgodfell 


[1467] Snickers: Re: Anyone going to answer the Wal-Mart ? RE: [1463]: Last time i 

checked fellas I play baseball for the U, which means I pretty much have to be a man. Okay, 

im sorry about the grammar but its a free discussion who really cares about spelling if it 

bothers you then don’t read it. I just wondering if anyone is actually going to respond to the 

workers being exploited question I wanted to see how others felt about the topic. 


[1468] Snowy: Bunny Care. RE: [1464]: Hey- to all of you in the class that like to use 

Marx Econ 5080 to discuss bunnies, baseball, likes, dislikes, etc. there is a website called 

Myspace.com....there you can post things about yourself, chat, etc. you don’t even have to 

worry about using spellcheck. 

Seriously I agree with Tripod...please use personal emails or a completely different site. 


[1469] BBQ: Re: Bunny Care. RE: [1468]: Snowy, I have to agree you are right on. I 

am far too busy to waste my time reading emails about bunnies. It is getting close to the 

end of the semester and I’m sure we are all becoming consumed with studying for finals. 

This board was created with the hope to stimulate intelligent conversations not to discuss 

frivolous topics like bunnies! 


[1472] Surferboy: Re: [1458] Re: $400 seats and Wal-mart. I actually agree with 

Daleman. People have their own free agency to work, and agreeing to horrible conditions 

is their own prerogative. In a capitalist system exploitation will never cease to be, if you 

were the CEO of walmart of course you would do the same things because money becomes 

the main object of your affection. Workers don’t have to subject themselves to such crappy 

situations, so it’s a bit hard for me to sympathize. If granny and gramps didn’t invest in their 

retirement when they had good jobs then why should I care if they are exploited when I’m 

benefiting by the cheap goods walmart has to offer. Daleman put his thoughts forth very 

eloquently, I admire that. 


[1473] Avatar: To Snowy and BBQ. Apparently neither of you can read, or you are both 

deliberately giving me the fantastic late birthday present of being able to make fools out of 

you over your lame replies to my bunny post. The first day of class, every student in the 

5080 class was given a syllabus. Let me reiterate the part you had trouble wrapping your 

intellect around: “SECTION D.5. Submissions to econ-5080 Part of your class assignments 

is participation in a general e-mail discussion list, called econ-5080, in which you may


discuss any topic of your choosing...This assignment is designed as something fun to do, not 

a chore.” 

To quote Hans on the first day of class, “From the 5080 list you may discuss anything 

from New Orleans to space travel.” 

You’ve had about 9 weeks to figure out that the das-kapital address is for homework and 

that econ-5080 is for whatever you feel like talking about- I am dismayed and amazed that 

neither of you picked up on it. So, I’m glad I could help you out. I’ll accept your praises 

later. 

And another thing, BBQ- did the subject line of my post not say “Bunny Care”? Here’s 

you, “I am far too busy to waste my time reading emails about bunnies.” Here’s me, “The 

subject line kind of gave it away you nit wit; it’s not like I cleverly disguised my bunny care 

post as something with any relation to Marx or economics.” Here’s you, “This board was 

created with the hope to stimulate intelligent conversations not to discuss frivolous topics 

like bunnies!” Here’s me, “Really? I didn’t even know that you had something to do with 

the creation of this board. Sorry! All this time I thought that Hans created it for the reasons 

stipulated in the syllabus.” 

Thank God that even though you’re too busy to read posts about my rabbit, you have 

plenty of time to write a response. 

To anyone else who is reading this: I’m sorry to take up your time with this “frivolous” 

topic. To think, right now you could be reading BBQ’s wonderful commentary on ABC’s 

hit drama Commander in Chief! [Post 1060] 

Oh, and while we’re on the subject of past posts. Let’s dig up this gem from Snowy. First 

let’s look at his pathetic jab at my bunny post, “Hey” — to all of you in the class that like to 

use Marx Econ 5080 to discuss 

bunnies, baseball, likes, dislikes, etc. there is a website called Myspace.com....there 

you can post things about yourself, chat, etc. you don’t even have to worry 

about using spellcheck. 

Seriously I agree with Tripod...“please use personal emails or a completely 

different site.” 

WOW! That’s great. Now let’s read Snowy’s post 1393: 

“Because of the mired of variables in life, accepting other people is, for 

me, the solution. Accepting others has increased my knowledge and left 

me with friends. I agree with McDugall’s words [1378] to accept everyone. 

Yet, many, as well as me find it hard to always do, even if you know that 

it is right. Dange displayed this [1364] with his response, that he appreciates 

McDugall’s comment on being tolerant and in the next sentence he 

displays intolerance towards Daleman for misspelling the word weak. This 

hypocrisy we are all prone to is saddening.” 


Do I even have to comment on the discrepancy here? I hope not. Anyway, Snowy, look 

up the word “mired”. You might be interested to know that it is the verb form of the word 

“mire” which is a synonym for “swamp”. Good thing you have spell check on. 

Gosh, I could go on busting you two up all night, but I need to go feed my bunny an 

apple. 

Thank you both for making my “required” post to 5080 a “chore”. 

-Avatar 


[1474] Daleman: Orthapedic shoes and denture cream. Pete, 

While I appreciate the passion of your point, you are erred in your thinking. I am in 

control of my own future. If I am greeting people at Wal-Mart in 50 years its my own damn 

fault. (although I would take pride in being the best greater in the business) 

The choices I make now and in the future will have a great impact on whether I will feel 

the need to apply to work at Wal-Mart. If I choose not to finish college or not to save for 

retirement then I am setting myself up to work at Wal-Mart. 

Whiners and Nay-Sayers will claim the people are victims of circumstances. While I 

know that bad things happen to good people, I also understand that part of what defines us 

as individuals is what we do when we are faced with struggles in life. 

My advice to Pete: 

1. Open a retirement account 

2. Live within your means and don’t live like your retired until your retired. 

3. Set aside cash for an emergency fund 

4. Create a plan now that will prevent you from having to work at Wal-MArt 


[1477] BBQ: Sea Monkey Care. I was just wondering if anyone knows how to care for 

Sea Monkeys. I mean, I know you’re busy with finals and all, but these really are cute little 

sea monkeys. Please check your syllabus and respond to my pathetic plea. Thank you. 

Message [1477] referenced by [1481] and [1520]. Next Message by BBQ is [1514]. 

[1480] Thelonius: Hot Dogs, with or without the bun? Re: [1466]: Rob- 

Granted, all that you say has merit...My position is that physical origin is a much more 

telling story of origins than age-old mythologies and folk stories. They do not tell a person 

how the divine wishes you to micromanage your life, that interpretation is up to the 

individual. 


[1481] Thelonius: Sea Monkey Care. Re: [1477]: BBQ- 

Sea Monkeys!? The most fascinating of pets...really. I interrupted my studies to do some 

research for you, hope it is of some help. 

T


A true MIRACLE of nature, Sea-Monkeys R○ actually exist in SUSPENDED ANIMA- 

TION! The Instant Life R○ crystals in which the eggs are enclosed, preserve their vitality 

and help to extend still further - their unhatched life span! Sea-Monkeys R○ are real TIME- 

TRAVELLERS asleep in biological time-capsules for their strange journey into the future! 

Sea-Monkeys R○ are very active creatures, responsive to environmental conditions of light, 

temperature and water currents. More incredible, we found a way to train Sea-Monkeys R○ 

to actually play REAL GAMES...with PEOPLE! 

...the five incredible means nature has devised for Sea-Monkeys R○ to enter the world - 

protected forever by a seemingly unbreakable “CHAIN OF LIFE”. 

...if something ever “goes wrong” and they should die, you can actually bring the entire 

Sea-Monkeys R○ family BACK TO LIFE - and turn your sadness into joy! No wonder Sea- 

Monkeys R○ are called “AMAZING LIVE” Sea-Monkeys R○ 

http://www.netfysh.com 

We would just like to point out that these creatures aren’t actually related to monkeys in 

case you are confused by the name and want them to sing “Day Dream Believer” to you. 


[1482] Picard: Remote Viewing. Remote viewing is the use of ESP (Extra Sensory 

Perception)to predict future events and/or see what is happening in a distant part of the 

world. It seems that the U.S. Government has hired so called remote viewers in the past 

and apparently is still doing so. These people are hired as psychic spies if you will and are 

asked to locate people and things such as Bin Laden and WMDs. I just think it’s facinating 

that our government beliefs enough in this “science” to spend many tax dollars on it. Those 

who were involved in these programs say that they were mostly successful. I heard one of 

these remote viewers on the radio saying that the government hired him to locate Bin Laden, 

who is in Pakistan according to him, and that the Bush administration did not go after him 

because they did not want to make a martyr out of him ect.. I’m just wondering what the rest 

of you thought about all this. 


[1486] Thelonius: Remote Viewing. Picard- 

I know that these Gov’mt employees are verifiable, that is they really exist and supposedly 

are well paid. I wonder if they are really looking for Bin Laden, or if they are remotely 

viewing Jennifer Love Hewitt..? 


[1490] Jingle: RE: Snickers umm. Tripod, 

It sounds like they are just bored, and have nothing else to write about so they have to 

pick on each other. Relax the class is almost over. 


[1491] Mason: Remote Viewing Re: [1486]: After all this time I’m beginning to believe 

that Thelonius is right. I think they are over paid, and just viewing Jennifer Love Hewitt. 



[1492] TimJim: President Bush and Iraq. I know that anything that has to do with the 

Prez is a controversial subject, but a subject that seems to be on the news recently is when 

our troops are coming home. I must admit that I have not kept up on the latest reports but 

I would still like to weigh in my opinion to the whole situation. When we first sent troops 

over to Iraq and then came up with the “miraculous” discovery of Saddam, (ironically a few 

months before voting) I was in complete support of Bush and believed that we are doing good 

leaving our troops. However I am growing weary and tired of hearing our troops continue to 

die and suffer with seemingly no end in sight. At first it was said that the troops would come 

home when a new government was established and there would be significant improvements 

to peace. As far as I have been informed, the government is securely in place and suicide 

bombings have decreased quite a bit. That seems to be good enough to me to stop wasting 

our money on a desert wasteland of people who have their priorities constantly changing on 

right and wrong. It is time to start sending our troops home, or at least a majority of them. If 

we haven’t been able to make a significant impact by now, what makes me believe leaving 

them in there for several more months, or years, will change anything. We seem to be a 

greedy country only worried about our way of life being enforced on others, and if anyone 

makes any threats on us, we will quickly dismantle their country beyond any recognition. 

I don’t believe what we do is right, but in a world like ours, what is the right thing to do? 

Message [1492] referenced by [1479], [1496], and [1522]. Next Message by TimJim is [1540]. 

[1493] Snickers: Fools and Wal-Mart. RE: [1459]: Very nicely done, I retract my 

statement as previously stated and declare Nazgul the winner. All I wanted was to see what 

other people thought on the issue and that is what i got from you, thanks. 


[1497] Thelonius: Re: President Bush and Iraq. Re: [1496]: Overlord- 

You, my friend are all backward. Kerry lost, Gore was an environmentalist halfwit and 

you need to get over it. The reign of the Sea-Monkeys has come, and you best start purchasing 

your China made flag, and start wagging it with the rest of the real patriots in our 

philanthropic, benevolent nation. Soon you’ll see who’s the boss, and no, it aint Tony Danza. 

Oh, and Christianity rocks the hardest. Get with the Programm(e). 


[1499] Pete: Orthapedic shoes and denture cream. Re: [1474]: When I was in high 

school I made a list of goals I wanted to do and things I wanted to have. I have accomplished 

every goal. Even stand-up comedy in LA. But my generation was not the saving generation 

and living within our means meant giving our kids everything that we didn’t get growing up. 

As for the seniors at Walmart, There are college graduates that had good jobs during their 

working years. Their retirement was sucked away during the 911 crisis. Between social 

security and what is left of retirement they needed more money to pay for the skyrocketing 

prices of drugs. 

One other thing, it is honorable and honest work to work at Walmart. Just my observation. 


[1520] MarxSchmarx: Sea Monkey Care. Re: [1477]: BBQ, The best way I know how 

to care for sea monkeys is to make them as delicious as possible. I found this great recipe for 

braised rabbit, but I am sure that you can substitute the rabbit with tasty sea monkeys. If you


can pry yourself away from studying this Thursday, try this recipe for your Thanksgiving 

feast and let me know how they turn out. 

BRAISED RABBIT WITH GRAINY MUSTARD SAUCE 

If you have difficulty finding rabbit, you can substitute 6 pounds of sea monkeys, cut into 

12 serving pieces, with the skin removed from all pieces but tails. Cook as directed below. 

2 (3-lb) rabbits*, each cut into 6 serving pieces 

1 1/2 teaspoons salt 

1 teaspoon black pepper 

3 to 4 tablespoons vegetable oil 

1 3/4 cups reduced-sodium chicken broth (14 fl oz) 

2 medium onions, finely chopped (2 cups) 

3 large garlic cloves, finely chopped 

1 teaspoon chopped fresh thyme 

3/4 stick (6 tablespoons) cold unsalted butter, cut into tablespoon pieces 

2 1/2 cups dry white wine 

1/3 cup Dijon mustard 

1/4 cup whole-grain mustard 

2 teaspoons cornstarch 

2 tablespoons cold water 

Rinse rabbit pieces and remove any fat, then pat dry and divide into 3 batches. Mix 

together salt and pepper in a small bowl for seasoning rabbit. 

Put oven rack in middle position and preheat oven to 350 ◦ F. 

Heat a dry 12-inch heavy skillet over moderately high heat until hot. Season first batch 

of rabbit, then add 3 tablespoons oil to skillet and brown rabbit on all sides, about 5 minutes 

total. Transfer browned rabbit to a flameproof roasting pan just large enough to hold all 

3 batches in 1 layer. Season and brown remaining 2 batches of rabbit in same manner, 

transferring to roasting pan and adding more oil to skillet between batches if necessary. 

Reserve skillet. 

Add broth to roasting pan, then cover pan tightly with foil and braise rabbit in oven 15 

minutes. 

While rabbit is braising, pour off any fat from skillet, then add onions, garlic, thyme, and 

3 tablespoons butter and cook over moderately low heat, stirring and scraping up any brown 

bits, until onions are softened, about 5 minutes. Add wine and boil until liquid is reduced by 

half, about 10 minutes. 


Pour mixture over rabbit and continue to braise, covered tightly, until rabbit is tender 

when pierced with a fork, 45 minutes to 1 hour more. Transfer rabbit to an ovenproof 

serving dish and keep warm, covered loosely with foil, in turned-off oven. 

Straddle roasting pan over 2 burners and boil braising liquid until reduced to about 3 1/4 

cups, about 10 minutes. Transfer 1/2 cup reduced liquid to a bowl and whisk in mustards. 

Add mustard mixture to reduced liquid in pan, whisking to incorporate. Dissolve cornstarch 

in water and whisk into sauce, then simmer, whisking, 2 minutes. Add remaining 3 tablespoons 

butter to sauce and swirl pan until incorporated. Season sauce with salt and pepper 

and pour over rabbit. 


[1522] Pete: President Bush and Iraq. Re: [1492]: TimJim, 

I agree. I wonder if the number of Bush’s family who have served in Iraq is the same as 

the number of times Bush himself went to Vietnam. 


[1525] Tesa: Wal Mart you’ve got to be kidding! I can’t believe some of you are fooled 

that anything coming from Wal Mart can be good. It is the Blight that makes my blood 

boil with rage every time I see one or hear the name! Can you not see the Devastating 

effects in its wake? Can’t you see that if this malignant entity is patronized that the result 

will only be higher prices on poorer quality at the cost of everyone except those that are 

already ridiculously rich? There is no weapon biological or chemical that is more stealthy 

and malicious than this Bane of humanity. Don’t talk to me of the numbers of people who are 

employed by this “gracious company”. I know many people who work at Wal Mart and they 

live in a run-down tiny cubicle of an excuse for an apartment. No bargain or convenience is 

worth supporting this cancer. We will pay twice the price in the end. 


[1526] Pete: Re: Sea Monkey Care. Re: [1520]: Sea Monkeys are a great complement 

to elephant stew. Don’t use a rabbit though because nobody likes a hair in their stew! 


[1527] BBQ: Re: Sea Monkey Care. RE: [1526]: Oh yes Sea Monkeys are a great 

complement to elephant stew! Rabbits, especially cute fluffy ones that are given as birthday 

presents tend to not taste very well! The hair can be a bit overwhelming!! 


[1528] Thugtorious: Sea Monkies with a little BBQ Sauce. Why do we all have to 

keep on harassing Avatar for her comment about her bunny. Seriously. She receives a 

bunny for her birthday, asks for some guidance from her peers, and then you all retaliate on 

her for following the classes syllabus. My question is what’s more important and relevant: 

continuing to regurgitate and reiterate the same arguments pertaining to Wal-Mart over and 

over again, or inspire new conversation about a fluffy bunny? 

Wait, I think the Wal Mart discussion is more relevant. So, Avatar, could you refrain from 

discussing your bunny on this board? 

Thanks. The Management ;-) 


[1529] Thelonius: Sea Monkies with a little BBQ Sauce. Thugtorious-


Considering that in MY religion Satan first appeared as a bunny rabbit in order to deceive 

people who are drawn to comfort, and that Wal-Mart deceives the comfort seekers by guises 

itself as a community loving business, when in truth it is the community destroyer...i feel (by 

right of MY RELIGION) that bunny rabbits and Wal-Mart are in perfect concert with one 

another...and don’t persecute me because of my religious beliefs. 


[1532] Tesa: Wal-mart: the truth behind the lies. There is a web page about Wal-Mart 

that I think is very pertinent. Just cut and paste 

http://www.pakin.org/complaint?title=&firstname=MarxShmarx&middlename=&lastnam 

http://www.pakin.org/complaint?title=&firstname=Snickers&middlename=&lastname=&su 

http://www.pakin.org/complaint?title=&firstname=Nazgul&middlename=&lastname=&suf 

And if you’re confused about any of it, be sure to follow the link at the bottom of the 

pages that I’ve mentioned. 


[1533] Tesa: Dang. Shoot, that post removed all the “equals” signs from the URLs. You’ll 

just have to play along to get the right pages. 

Go to 

http://www.pakin.org/complaint 

and put in your name, or Wal-Mart. (This would have been much better if the econ-5080 

list weren’t so active in altering posts mid-stream. Oh well, half a joke is better than none.) 


[1534] Thelonius: To Tesa... Tesa- 

My Hijinks may very well have their identifiable measure of acrinanimity, but I am by no 

means a lexiphanicist. That was below the belt. 


[1537] Hans: Last chance for Term paper group. If any individual in the class still 

needs a term paper partner, please contact Mullin@marx.econ.utah.edu by 3 am Wednesday 


morning, Nov 23. Term papers written by individuals not in a group will only be accepted if 

you give me prior notice and get my prior permission. No such permissions will be given to 

requests emailed after 3 am Wednesday morning. 

Hans. 


[1543] Hans: Makeup Homework assignments over Thanksgiving and in last week of 

classes. Many class participants have not yet submitted enough homework assignments. I 

http://www.pakin.org/complaint?firstname=Wal-Mart&pgraphs=10&gender=c 

will send a list of question out in the next two days which will be assigned over Thanksgiving, 

so that you have an opportunity to get more homeworks in. Many of these questions 

will refer to the earlier chapters of Capital. 

into your browser and read on. Oh, and moreover, here’s one about Avatar: 

I will do the same thing in the very last week of the Semester. 

http://www.pakin.org/complaint?title=&firstname=Avatar&middlename=&lastname=&suf The syllabus says that you can only make one graded submission for chapter 25. I will 

And anybody else who may in the future disagree with me: 

enforce this. Therefore if you need more than 1 homework to finish your assignments, you 

have an opportunity to make one extra submission over Thanksgiving, and one in the last 

http://www.pakin.org/complaint?title=&firstname=Thugatorius&middlename=&lastname=& week of the Semester. I will assign questions which I consider interesting and which either 

http://www.pakin.org/complaint?title=&firstname=BBQ&middlename=&lastname=&suf 

did not get sufficient discussion when they were assigned, or some questions which were not 

printed in the present version of the Annotations. 

http://www.pakin.org/complaint?title=&firstname=Pete&middlename=&lastname=&suffix 


[1551] Thelonius: Jimmy Carter in SLC Tonight...!?! Hey all you you proto Socialisthttp://www.pakin.org/complaint?title=&firstname=Thelonius&middlename=&lastname=&su 

Democrats- 

For your pleasure, former President jimmy Carter will be at the Sugarhouse Barnes and 

Noble tonight, Nov. 22nd, from 6.00 intil 8.00pm. He will be signing copies of his new 

book, Our Endangered Values, and i believe he will be giving a short address. Its a chance 

to meet a living legend, and a Noble Peace Prize Louriat. Your friend, 


[1553] Astclair: A brief account of Mandela on Communism. Sorry if this bores you, 

but I found it interesting, and funny. This is a paragraph from ch.13 in Nelson Mandela’s 

book Long Walk to Freedom. This comes in the context of him wanting to learn more about 

the communist ideas. Many of his colleagues were communist supporters, and he had always 

been against it, without really knowing what it fully meant. 

“I acquired the complete works of Marx and Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao Tse-tung, and 

others and probed them into the philosophy of dialectical and historical materialism. I had 

little time to study these works properly. While I was stimulated by the Communist Manifesto, 

I was exhausted by Das Kapital. But I found myself strongly drawn to the idea of a 

classless society, which, to my mind, was similar to traditional African culture where life 

was shared and communal. I subscribed to Marx’s basic dictum, which has the simplicity 

and generosity of the Golden Rule: ’From each according to his ability; to each according 

to his needs’.” 


[1555] Mullin: Credit Unions or Banks. There has been an ongoing battle between 

banks and credit unions in the state of Utah. This has been such an ever-present issue that it


has been brought before the voters on more than one occasion. What is the issue? To put it 

in basic terms: credit unions are having an identity crisis and believe they are banks. 

A couple of weeks ago this was brought before congress and Utah was used as the model 

state as to what has gone wrong. The basic institutions that had been established for the 

betterment of the poor to middle class were now assisting the wealthy to become wealthier 

all the while not having to pay taxes and receiving other coveted benefits. Credit unions 

were intended to provide savings accounts and consumer loans only, yes only, to particular 

communities and groups of workers that would benefit directly from these breaks. For 

performing such an honorable duty they would be tax exempt and be able to provide higher 

interest yields on their savings accounts. 

Turn the clock to 2005 and look around. America First Credit Union is now the second 

largest financial institution in Utah, behind Zions Bank, offering personal and business products 

of every variety. They have taken advantage of the breaks they have been given and are 

incredibly lucrative for the heads of these institutions as they are “forced” to pocket more 

money at the end of the year to ensure that they are still “non-profit” organizations. 

Am I completely anti-credit union? No, I think they provide great services to individuals 

who need these advantages when used properly. However, now that they have been vastly 

perverted they are only contributing to the widening difference between the upper and lower 

classes. Think twice before you continue to contribute to this agenda. 

Message [1555] referenced by [1566] and [1586]. Next Message by Mullin is [1597]. 

[1556] MrPink: A brief account of Mandela on Communism. Response to [1553]: 

Astclair: 

I too find that interesting, thank you for sharing. 

The impact of these writings has influenced many great world figures. Gandhi also embraced 

aspects of socialism and communism. This in turn impacted many people in India, 

the effects of which can be seen even today. 

Another thing I find intriguing, both Mandela and Gandhi were imprisoned and utilized 

their time by reading western works. 

This article has some humorous aspects but also shows how communism is alive today in 

the world’s largest democracy: 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south asia/4374826.stm 

MrPink 


[1566] Bubba: banks and credit unions. In response to Mullin’s [1555], I worked up 

at the Utah State Legislature as an intern during the 2005 session this spring, and that was 

one of three or so main issues that we heard about nonstop. I agree with the historical 

background that Mullin gave as well as the conclusion that credit unions have overstepped 

their bounds and shouldn’t get benefits like they do. I researched this to prepare a nice form 

letter to send back to people who e-mailed my representatives (unless they were actually 

from the rep’s district – then they usually got something personalized, maybe even written 


by the representative). In my research, I read a lot of fine-tuned propaganda so that I could 

get both sides’ perspective, and the only good (well, sort of good) argument by the credit 

unions was that they believe they deserve such benefits because, well, they’re “banks version 

2.0” or something similar, on the grounds that they simply provide better customer service 

and more benefits. That’s probably true. However, it’s definitely not enough to excuse them 

from paying the income taxes that would go to support Utah’s severely cash-strapped public 

education system. 


[1569] SueGirl: Then What? Hello Everyone, 

I’ve learned a lot in this Marxian Economics class. Throughout the past few months I’ve 

seen the dangerous and unfair effects of some aspects of capitalism. My question is, if not 

capitalism, then what? What is the answer? What do you all think? 

SueGirl 

Message [1569] referenced by [1590] and [1626]. Next Message by SueGirl is [1656]. 

[1577] Mason: President Carter. Did anyone who actually went to see former president 

Carter actually get close enough to him to even get your book signed or talk to him? Because 

you would think that if you have a book signing you would sign people’s books long enough 

to have everyone get them signed that was there to get them signed. 

Mason 


[1580] Fidel: I NEED A GROUP. If there are any groups left that have not submitted a 

termp paper I would do just about anything to get hooked up with your group. Please let me 

know. 

Brandon 


[1586] Fidel: Credit Unions or Banks. Re: [1555]: What can we do? Outside of means 

testing for possible customers and putting hard caps on pay for the workers. I agree that the 

original charters have been perverted and they have essentially morphed into something else. 

The reason I think that the votes have gone in favor of the credit unions is because so many 

poor and middle class people like myself use their services and derive a huge benefit from 

it. I don’t feel sorry for larger financial service firms like Zions Bank. They are healthy and 

way more “profitable” then the credit unions. I put profitable in quotes because technically, 

wink, wink, credit unions are not for profit. Well we all know they make a profit so once 

we accept that we can be glad that we are getting paid a small amount of interest on our 

checking accounts better interest in our savings accounts and cheaper loans for our cars and 

homes. 


[1590] Surferboy: Then What? Re: [1569]: Suegirl, 

That’s actually an excellent question. I think that Socialism would be a great replacement 

for capitalism. 

Russia was a horrible example of socialism because they lacked a proletariat, they had 

no industrialization and really no Bourgeouise. Socialism failed in Russia because it was


not a prime candidate. Sweden on the other hand has only a socialist economy. They have 

done very well and have created a great public education system and have great health care. 

Capitalism in the US has only exploited and hindered the growth of a nation that has so 

much potential. It would be nice to have an economic system that didn’t exploit the people 

that help built it but instead reward them as socialism does, it gives equality. 


[1597] Mullin: Thanksgiving Shopping. It brings shame to my being as I recognize 

the ability of the media and the businessmen to have molded us into believing that we must 

shop the day after Thanksgiving or be looked upon as the social outcast. The only comment 

that is more common than that of “when are we going to have pie” when seated at the table 

on Thanksgiving is a question detailing one’s shopping strategy for the following morning. 

Unfortunately it doesn’t end there; as you listen closer you realize that this shopping fiasco 

is going to begin before the sun has thought about rising for the day. Tonight you will most 

likely hear of injuries, if not deaths, that occurred as the race was on for the season’s hottest 

items at “unbelievably low prices.” My comments are not degrading to the individual that 

is reading this while balancing your checkbook and icing your knees from the rough day’s 

“work” nor is complimentary to you that stayed out of harms way and will get your shopping 

done on another day at a different time. Rather, do you really think that this is the way that 

tradition would have it be? I would argue that it is not and that we have indeed been targeted 

by intelligent businessmen who have noticed a weak spot in our armor and have continued 

to attack it on a yearly basis reaching new highs for sales year in and year out. Will I 

be shopping today? No! But I must applaud those who have convinced the majority of 

the population that intense shopping and ridiculous spending is an honorable page out of 

Thanksgiving weekend tradition. After all, isn’t that how the original Thanksgiving was 

concluded? 

Message [1597] referenced by [1602] and [1638]. Next Message by Mullin is [1598]. 

[1602] Pete: Thanksgiving Shopping. Re: [1597]: We are just like Pavlov’s dog. The 

advertisers ring their little “The day after Sale” bell and we salivate. slurp! 


[1604] Tiny: Re: Thanksgiving Shopping. RE: [1602]: You both are looking at this from 

a one sided perspective. Did you ever think that maybe some people like to go shopping 

during the day after Thanksgiving. Maybe it is a tradition for others. It is not the only day 

of the year that people shop the most. As you talk about hearing of deaths and injuries, 

that is no different that other holidays or special events. There are other holidays and events 

that cause people to spend more, go more crazy and be ridiculous. There are different ways 

people shop, buy and spend. Some like to wait until the last moment. Dec. 23 is more crazy 

and more purchases made than after Thanksgiving. What about that day?? Besides, some 

people like to plan and get their shopping done before hand to be able to enjoy the rest of 

the season and remember why they may celebrate Christmas. So, before you go and stomp 

over others’ ideas/traditions or fun, maybe you should try understanding their point of view 

first. Everyone has their own way of shopping and if anything, you should try to respect it. 


[1626] Legolas: then what/ thanksgiving. It is funny you brought that topic up because 

I was pondering the same question this weekend. Seeing the mass consumerism of society 

is so sad because it is such a forefront example of how the capitalists enterprises have made 


the workers believe they need to buy an ipod or plasma t.v. or all of these extremely costly 

yet unnecessary items. What was most disturbing was something that should be seen as a 

foreshadow of days to come, and that was the fight that broke out in a wal-mart at 5a.m. over 

a plasma t.v. on sale for $999. when i first saw the footage i immediately thought of how an 

almost monopolistic structure, as walmart, has created a society completely dependent on 

it, so that even their employees cannot afford to shop at walmart, yet they are pushing for 

a higher minimun wage? This brings me to the question that suegirl brought up in [1569]: 

Then what? I do not know the answer to capitalism, as there are many who argue for or 

against, as with any philosophy, but I do think that a society who allows itself to become fully 

dependent on the capitalists, as with wal-mart, will eventually lead to an overthrow of the 

capitalists. walmart is a socialist structure in itself as it has driven all the prices down so all 

the small businesses cannot compete, leading to once middle class folk to now working for 

5.15 an hour. Walmart is exploited capitalism and eventually will be overthrown. However, 

I do not believe a truly socialist structure will ever be able to function because you have to 

many greedy people who will always want and fight for more money and power. 

Message [1626] referenced by [1635]. Next Message by Legolas is [1725]. 

[1635] Aaron: then what/ thanksgiving. RE: [1626]: Instead of wondering what then, 

after capitalism, we should stay the course that grown the most powerful economy and nation 

on the planet and fix our problems. As with any group of people working together more 

management is needed to focus the efforts of a larger number of people. While this may 

sound like a statement to discredit the leadership skills of our national government it is not. 

I am merely looking at the situation without bias and trying to determine based on other 

smaller less complex examples how others have used capitalism to successfully navigate 

creating wealth among all other competition. 


[1637] Ash: re: then what/ thanksgiving. Everyone talks about how capitalism has 

“made”, or coerced people into buying this or that. Why is it that nobody looks at themselves 

and says, “I was the one who chose to buy that.” The problem with society is not capitalism, 

its that noone wants to take blame for their own mistakes and shortcomings. “Wal-mart’s ad 

wooed into buying this t.v.” Whatever! If capitalism is so bad as Marx teaches then what of 

the people that adhere to it? Take a look in the mirror- you are capitalism! 


[1638] Parmenio: Thanksgiving Shopping. RE: [1597]: So who cares? I hate shopping 

just about every day of the year, I don’t know if there is anything that I like to shop for, 

if I have money or not. That doesn’t mean I am not a materialist though, only that I hate 

shopping, I am a materialist. 

Thanksgiving is by far the best holiday for me, you wake up early go and play some 

football, then you come home and so sore that you can hardly walk up the stairs (for a few 

days), you go and watch some football till around 4 or 5 then you stuff yourself like a pig. 

After playing ball in the morning and not eating till 4 or 5 I can always pack away some 

serious food, what you can’t stuff in you can have as leftovers for the next few days. 

God I love Thanksgiving. 

Next Message by Parmenio is [1643].


[1689] DarkKnight: Thanksgiving vs. Christmas. I have no problem with those who 

choose to take the day after thanksgiving to go shopping. After all, you have to start feeding 

the beast that is consumeristmas as soon as possible to help relieve the “holiday stress”. I 

was slaving away for my capitalist overlords (no relation to our esteemed classmate) last 

Friday. It seems to me that Thanksgiving can be a more enjoyable holiday than Christmas. 

Good food, good football, and time with family, all without the pressure of gift giving. “Will 

she like what I got her?” “Did I spend enough that he won’t think I’m cheap?” “How are we 

going to pay for it all?” 

I know many of us will try to honor the “true spirit of Christmas” (whatever we understand 

that to be) for various personal or religious reasons. Others of us will simply enjoy the time 

off work, take pleasure in exchanging gifts, or relax with our family. Whatever we decide to 

do, we will be surrounded by the noise of modern day consumerism. 

Is there any other time of year when the beast of our consumerist/capitalist society rears 

its ugly head so proudly? 

Paradoxically, the Christmas season is also one of increased charitable giving. I wonder 

why? 


[1690] McDugall: Test Resubmits. Does anyone know the email address for Test Question 

Resubs? I cant find my test paper with the instructions. Any help would be greatly 

appreciated!! 

Thanks, 


[1710] Surferboy: Thanksgiving vs. Christmas. Re: [1689]: Holidays are always big 

for shopping because we all love bargains. DarkKnight you say you wonder why Christmas 

is a time for charitable giving. I used to wonder that, but now Christmas has become Christ’s 

nightmare and the capitalists’ dream. Charitable giving has lost its value, no one cares any 

more about charity, everyone wants the best presents, selfishness has obliterated the good of 

the holidays. 


[1723] DarkKnight: Christmas giving. Surferboy, Your cynicism is impressive. I hope 

it’s not how you really feel. I’ve noticed an increase in the number of opportunities to 

participate in charitable giving every year as the Christmas season approaches. From Toysfor-Tots, 

to the Utah Food Bank, to Sub for Santa. I suspect you might even see a Salvation 

Army volunteer or two. The evidence is certainly there to refute your assertion that “no one 

cares any more about charity”. Let me be the first to wish you a Merry Christmas and I hope 

you find the bargain of your dreams. 

First Message by DarkKnight is [134]. 

[1742] Ash: christmas vs. thanksgiving. If that is the only way you look at the holidays 

then it would make sense to dispise them because of consumerism. But what about family 

and friends? Getting together and catching up? I would agree that Christmas especially has 

become way too commercialized. As for me I like to focus on the good of the Holidays, like 

bringing families together and such. 



[1745] Karlwho: christmas vs thanksgiving. I think most of us would agree that Christmas 

has become far too commercialized. I ask this question, Are you part of the reason 

Christmas is too commercialized? In economics we learn about the relationship between 

demand and supply. If there is not a demand, there will be no supply. I think it strange that 

Christmas is one day, but yet there is a Chirstmas season. Every year the Christmas season 

seems to be getting longer. If the retailers were not having huge successes, this would not 

be the case. I propose the reason that Christmas is so commercialized is because people are 

selfish and only think about what they will receive. Many people give, thinking only what 

will be given back. Why not just cut out all the beating around the bush, and just give to 

ourselves? This will ensure that everyone receives exactly what they want for Christmas. 

Are you part of the reason Christmas is so commercialized? 

Message [1745] referenced by [1752], [1753], [1757], and [1806]. Next Message by Karlwho is [1790]. 

[1746] Ace: questions over thanksgiving. Hans, did the questions that we did over 

thanksgiving count as a homework submission or just as extra credit on homework we have 

already completed. 

First Message by Ace is [39]. 

[1748] Pete: Grades. Hans, 

When can we expect to see our scores for the 2nd test? 


[1751] ADHH: Christmas. I think the reason that the Christmas season has been extended 

to start right after Halloween is because Christmas is supposed to be a time of joy 

and wonder. As a pleasure-seeking society, the extension of joy is not an outrageous idea. 

While the holidays may be joyful for my neighbors, whose Christmas light display could 

misguide airplanes, I personally have a hard time with commercialized Christmas and the 

radio stations that are playing 24 hours a day of Christmas music before November has even 

started. 

Are we jaded against Christmas when we don’t have small children with which to share 

the holiday experience? 


[1752] PAE: christmas vs thanksgiving. RE: [1745]: I think part of the reason there 

is the demand for the Christmas season starting early is not just the shopping but people 

needing something in their lives to take their mind off of their everyday troubles. Christmas 

is an easy way to forget the real problems happening in their lives and act happy for the sake 

of acting happy. When Christmas rolls around every year, everyhting else in life seems to 

take a back seat to,looking at the lights, singing, spreading Christmas joy, and all that other 

crap. I dont want to seem like I hate Christmas but I do think people take the whole thing a 

little to far. 


[1753] Surferboy: christmas vs thanksgiving. Re: [1745]: Just for the record I don’t 

hate christmas. I just feel like presents are commodities and so is charity. People give to 

charities for status, and lots of people give presents because they want to receive presents. 

I enjoy the holidays with the family and that the holidays would be much more enjoyable 

if capitalists wouldn’t exploit that enjoyment. It’s hard to enjoy Christmas when we start 

celebrating it before halloween.



[1756] Mason: Re: christmas vs thanksgiving. Re: [1753]: I agree with much of 

what Karlwho and Surferboy are saying. I to agree that Christmas has become way too 

commercialized to the extent that most people forget what christmas is truly about. People 

generally care about what their receive rather than being with your family because of the 

pressure society has put on them. 


[1757] Jimmie: christmas vs thanksgiving. RE: [1745]: Or, we should just give each 

other cash and save everybody the trouble! 


[1758] Pisciphiliac: Re: christmas vs thanksgiving. RE: [1757]: Or, we could not 

exchange gifts at all and just be together with family and friends. 

Does it bother anyone else that some radio stations started playing Christmas music a 

week before Thanksgiving? 


[1759] MrPink: Bah-humbug. I guess asking the class to participate in a Secret Santa is 

out of the question. :) 

Mr. Pink 


[1760] Thugtorious: YES!! Secret Santa!! A “Secret Santa” would actually be insanely 

fun!! Get everybody’s pseudonyms that want to participate, randomly draw names, and then 

we meet somewhere to exchange gifts while also unveiling the people behind the names!! 

Add alcoholic-egg nog and we could have one hell of a little shindig!! 


[1764] MrPink: YES!! Secret Santa!! Thanks Thugtorious! For the record, I was joking. 

But I’m game for whatever. 


[1766] Claire: christmas vs thanksgiving. To the response from Pisciphiliac it does 

bug me that we do not have time for Thanksgiving because radios are playing Christmas 

music. What else bothers me is some of the stores put Christmas merchandise even before 

Halloween. I know that it is a holiday that is big but they should wait until at least until 

Thanksgiving to start pestering us about our gift lists. 


[1767] Nazgul: Seceret Santa. For those individuals that are overjoyed at the idea of a 

seceret santa party, what do you suppose the draw of it is? Is it the opportunity to find out 

individuals real identities, validation that you do indeed have a social life, love of christmas 

activities, or an excuse to drink and maybe make a fool of youself? 

If you do indeed decide to have it and exchange gifts, I suggest a $5 limit and anything 

must be purchased from a second hand store. 


[1768] Pete: Re: christmas vs thanksgiving. Re: [1758]: KOZY started on November 

1st. UUUGGGHHHH 



[1806] Jerm: I Love Christmas! In Karlwho’s submission [1745] he/she says that the 

reason that Christmas is so commercialized is because people are selfish and only think 

about what they will receive. I don’t think it is fair to make a blanket statement like this 

assuming this is the case for everybody. The Christmas season is the most wonderful time 

of year and it helps a lot of people to feel compassion for others and to do what they can to 

help. It is for this reason that the Road Home shelter is overwhelmed with donations during 

this time of year, (I know because I volunteered down there last year.) I agree that Christmas 

has become too commercialized, but to say that everybody is selfish and only cares about 

what they receive is not true! 

Message [1806] referenced by [1819]. First Message by Jerm is [147]. 

[1819] Snowy: I Love Christmas! RE: [1806]: I would agree with Jerm. I think that 

Christmas does more good than bad to our society. Growing up my dad would have us do 

either sub for santa or pick a person from the Angel tree in ZCMI (or one of the department 

stores) who wouldn’t get gifts for Christmas. Each member of my family would have one 

person that we would shop for. We would all go shopping and get one big thing off our 

assigned persons Christmas list and a few other small things. I remember that we gave a 

family their first bike, boom box, and other commodities that I have always had. We also 

gave up our Christmas one year for a trip to Puerta Vallarta, Mexico. We took a lot of toys 

and workbooks, crayons and chalk. We went to a little school deep in the country. At the 

school they were using palm tree leaves to seperate their class rooms. We gave them these 

much needed supplies. It was the best experience we had on our vacation. These and many 

other experiences that I have participated in due to the ‘spirit of Christmas’ has proved to me 

that Christmas is a time that people serve and are more concerned with those who have less. 

In addition, shopping for others for Christmas is a humbling experience, you are thinking of 

and spending time and money for others. Yes, at times things do get out of control, but the 

good often comes with some bad. But the good out weighs the bad in respects to Christmas. 

First Message by Snowy is [251]. 

[1820] Bubba: Intellectual Property Rights. Here’s one that I’ve been pondering ever 

since Hans mentioned earlier in the semester in [767]: “I think all books should be in the 

public domain, so that everybody should be able to download any book they want for free 

from the internet, possibly in a peer-to-peer network from your computer.” I really like the 

idea – yesterday, I accessed an electronic book for a research paper I was writing, and it was 

tremendously helpful, not to mention easier to quote (cut and paste into Word), and VERY 

easy to search through using Google-type sites. The whole text is online at 

http://site.ebrary.com/lib/utah/Doc?id=10074349 

However, you can only access it at the U of U, just like several other sites they subscribe 

to using our student fees. I don’t know if part of that subscription money goes to royalties. 

Since I can see how authors need to eat and therefore need the royalties, maybe one way 

to implement Hans’s scheme would be to have a publicly funded database (or even several, 

according to genre) that paid authors who submit their works, and then let the funding for 

it come from user seasonal or one-time subscriptions. Alternatively, you could do what 

Napster and other “reformed” pirated-music sites have turned into: pay-to-play. There, if


I understand it correctly, a portion of each 99-cent (I won’t mention the fact that the evil 

Wal-Mart offers a lower rate) goes to pay royalties to the artist. 


[1864] Parmenio: “blueprint for a better society” At the beginging of this class we 

were told that Capital wasn’t a “blueprint” for a better society, but in chapter 32 Marx says 

“This is the negation of the negation. It does not re-establish private property, but it does 

indeed establish individual property on the basis of the achievements of the capitalist era: 

namely co-operation and the possession in common of the land and the means of production 

produced by the labour itself”. Which is basically a blueprint for a better society. 

It seems the begining I would agree with Hans, he was critiquing capitalism more than 

blueprinting, but this culminated in a blueprint by the end. 


[1873] Parmenio: Marx and Revolution? I am wondering what the people in this class 

think of a Marxist revolution. 

My belief is that there will not be one in modern capitalist societies. My reason, I discussed 

this first in a critique of a term paper but wanted to ask the class too, is that one of 

Marx’s predictions was that capitalism would get worse and worse, till a breaking point was 

hit, and the workers would revolt. As conditions got worse and worse the workers broke, but 

they didn’t try to revolution as Marx predicted, they went on strike and unionized. The capital 

response was to resist, but ultimately to give in, and give the workers more of what they 

produced. (I would love to see someone argue that today’s workers, in capitalist countries, 

are worse than 100 years ago) 

So the capitalists forestalled a revolution by giving the workers what they were after, better 

working conditions and money etc, Marx doesn’t appear to have seen this. He didn’t realize 

that capitalists would placate the workers with better conditions and wages, he thought 

that they would keep squeezing the workers for all they had, which would have produced 

what Marx predicted. 

Also I think that Marx missed one major aspect of Capitalism, and that is that the Market 

wouldn’t allow the workers to get worse and worse, because they could unionize and strike 

(in a “free market”, of which I don’t know if any truly exist, but for the sake of argument). 

So if the conditions got so bad, the workers could simply demand more, and try to get from 

the capitalists what they wanted. Government’s did intervene and try to stop the workers, 

but that is hardly a “free market”, and the capitalists eventually did given in and the workers 

did get more of what they produced even though the governments, sometimes, tried to stop 

this. 

Also Marx didn’t’ seem to discuss things as they exist in a continuum, he discussed them 

in an either or mindset. Today’s countries have a hybrid of capitalism with just about all 

having some form of socialistic impulses. A lot of this is what Marx seems to predict, that 

the workers will unite, they did, but instead of fighting tooth and nail, the capitalists placated 

some of their requests, thus no revolution. It is only in the more top down aristocratic 

countries that one saw true revolution. 


Hans said in [1868] “up to one-third of the earth’s population lived in Marxist-inspired 

non-capitalist economic systems. Even today the fear of a socialist alternative keeps the 

ruling class awake at night, this is why they are so aggressive against Cuba and now also 

Venezuela”. So the revolution did happen, but still not as Marx predicted. 

All of the socialist revolutions happened in old feudal economies, not capitalist ones. Go 

down the list; Russia, China, Cuba, Vietnam, Korea (now North Korea), Venezuela, Easter 

Europe, etc. None were ever capitalist economies; they were all ruled by some old order 

that had stagnated. In fact the more capitalistic a country is seems to be an immunity to any 

revolution. 

I would like to know where this analysis is wrong? 


[1875] Avatar: Marx and Revolution? RE: [1873]: You assert that conditions are not 

getting worse and worse. What does that mean? What conditions do you mean? By whose 

judgment are we to decide if things are better or worse, or by what criteria? Yes, people have 

less strenuous working conditions, but what about life? Consider what capitalism has done 

to the character of life. 

Because you asked for it, I will argue that today’s workers have it worse than those of 

100 years ago. Here again though, what are we to do with the notion of “worse”? We have 

higher wages, and shorter work days. Workers Comp, vacation pay- the list goes on and on. 

How are we worse off? 

Autonomy, for one. We have simply lost the ability to choose not to be in the system. It 

is harder today to sustain yourself with out being part of capitalism. If we classify “worse” 

as how entrenched in capitalism we are, then today we are worse. 

Or maybe worse is inequality? Look at the disparity between the richest and the poorest. 

I don’t have figures, but it seems to me that the gap between the richest and the poorest is 

getting bigger all the time. So, if we think of the poorest man in the world, relative to the 

richest man in the world- we are worse today. 

So, what are the criteria for deciding what makes things worse? I submit that until we 

have some sort of consensus about that, we can’t argue it one way or the other. 


[1877] Parmenio: Re: Marx and Revolution? Quotes are from Avatar. Thank you for 

picking the gauntlet up. 

“Here again though, what are we to do with the notion of ‘worse’? We have higher wages, 

and shorter work days. Workers Comp, vacation pay- the list goes on and on. How are we 

worse off? Autonomy, for one. We have simply lost the ability to choose not to be in the 

system. It is harder today to sustain yourself with out being part of capitalism. If we classify 

‘worse’ as how entrenched in capitalism we are, then today we are worse.” 

By autonomy you say that one can’t leave the system? But then you give a completely 

arbitrary definition of “worse”, one in which your sole opinion on the matter is all that 

matters. I would agree that if one were to define “worse” as how entrenched we are in 

capitalism that we are worse off, but that is hardly what I was asking (one could just as well


claim the definition of worse as “are we more entrenched in socialism today than we were a 

hundred years ago”, the irony is that the answer would be yes we are more entrenched today, 

and therefore worse off). 

I was defining worse as in ‘are the lives of the people actually working, something practical 

not ethereal, worse or better, today as opposed to a hundred years ago?’ 

Also by autonomy to leave the system I would say that today one has more opportunity to 

leave than they have in the past. In a world that has seen transportation costs, and time, drop 

dramatically you are telling me that if one wanted to migrate to another country with another 

economic principle that they have less opportunity than when they did this a hundred years 

ago? That doesn’t appear to hold up to any real scrutiny. 

Pray tell why the socialist system of Cuba is tougher to leave then the Capitalist system 

of the US, and also why the traffic is one way? To leave the US all you have to do is get 

whatever transportation to the place you want to go (at a reduced cost to a hundred years ago 

too), to leave Cuba you have to secretly devise a plan, and then risk your life at leaving. 

On the lack of sustainability I would also say you are at a loss. If by sustain (give me 

your criteria to determine “sustenance”) you mean the basic amenities of life I would say 

food is more plentiful (in capitalist countries, when was the last famine in the US, then think 

famine in the context of Russia and China) now than in the past, I challenge you to go down 

to Pioneer park and find me one starving homeless person. In fact I find that they are on 

the average rather overweight. Clothing is cheaper and easier to get, no one is naked in the 

country, or literally forced to wear rags, again go and look at the homeless, and tell me if 

they lack for clothing. I can’t think of anything that costs more now, or is less easily accessed 

today than in the past. 

“Or maybe worse is inequality? Look at the disparity between the richest and the poorest. 

I don’t have figures, but it seems to me that the gap between the richest and the poorest is 

getting bigger all the time. So, if we think of the poorest man in the world, relative to the 

richest man in the world- we are worse today.” 

Good point, I might agree that the gap between the richest and the poorest has increased 

(I don’t know either, but off the top of my head I will grant you that it is), so what does that 

tell us? If one looks at the world as a zero sum equation then you are right things are worse 

off, but I don’t. If the richest is richer, but the poor also have more then what does that tell 

us? I fail to see the poor saying “I would rather live in a more equitable society and be worse 

off than live in a less equitable society and be better off”, think practically. 

I would say better off because the poor have running water now and indoor plumbing, not 

to mention the water is cleaner now than in the past (we haven’t had a cholera outbreak in 

this country for some time). I have yet to meet a person, outside of the truly homeless, that 

doesn’t have an oven or microwave, which makes cooking a hell of a lot easier. Who doesn’t 

have electricity, or a telephone today, technological advances that have made the lives of 

people today easier than in the past. 

By poorest man in the world, you honestly think that the poorest person living a hundred 

years ago was living in a decent place? For a Marxist you lack needed reading, try Engel’s 


Conditions of the Working Class in England (this was in the mid 19th century, and I would 

argue that conditions had gotten better by the end of the period, which is my point). Try 

reading that and then tell me that the poor today are worse off. 

I should also tell you that one has to compare apples to apples, thank Hans for this. You 

can’t compare the poor in China or Mozambique to the US, we want to compare capitalism 

today to capitalism a hundred years ago. So when you compare you have too look in the 

same country, unless the country had an overhaul of its economy since then. 

Also would you say the US is more or less capitalistic today than a hundred years ago? I 

would argue that the US today has more social programs than they had then, do you disagree? 

“So, what are the criteria for deciding what makes things worse? I submit that until we 

have some sort of consensus about that, we can’t argue it one way or the other.” 

I agree with this statement, so what criteria do you have in mind that I haven’t mentioned. 

I advocate actual conditions, longevity is one which people use (I would like you to tell me 

how one living longer is a sign of “worse” conditions), relative working conditions is another. 

It is debatable. 

Message [1877] referenced by [1879]. First Message by Parmenio is [281]. 

[1879] Avatar: Re: Marx and Revolution? RE: [1877]: “I would rather live in a more 

equitable society and be worse off than live in a less equitable society and be better off”, 

think practically. 

I think that’s the problem. I for one would live at a level less than where I am today, if it 

meant more equality. 

You say, “Who doesn’t have electricity, or a telephone today, technological advances that 

have made the lives of people today easier than in the past.” 

Here you are making “easier” a synonym for “better”. Just because we have more conveniences, 

doesn’t mean we’re better off. 

You make good statements, but the discussion still falls on “what do we mean by worse”? 

Your argument against my first example was that I give an “arbitrary definition of ”worse“, 

one in which your sole opinion on the matter is all that matters.” 

You’re right. That’s what I’m saying. If I can define worse, I can argue it either way. So 

there is the problem. What is “worse”? 

You say, “ I was defining worse as in ’are the lives of the people actually working, something 

practical not ethereal, worse or better, today as opposed to a hundred years ago?’” 

Hard to say. Maybe, maybe not. If you exclude the “ethereal”, which I expect means 

“anything that can’t be measured”, then it’s a loaded question. Happiness should be the 

judge of better. Are workers happier? I don’t know. 

First, let me say, I’m not convinced either way. I don’t want this to turn into a pissing 

contest between us, so I’m just going to ask questions until someone else chimes in with 

something to say. Finally, I just want to mention the somewhat current examples you mentioned.


You say we can’t compare china to the usa, we have to stay in the same country. I think 

that’s bullocks. The usa today is a different country today than it was 100 years ago; so 

comparing them is okay. The economy today is a world economy anyway. You want me to 

read Engles. Look at the title of the book. It’s about Working Conditions. I’m asking about 

life. All the things people do when they’re not at work. Are those things better? Are people 

more or less fulfilled? Are people happier? Are people feeling good? What difference does 

it make if life expectancy is higher if people are miserable? 


[1884] Aaron: Greenspan..? Consider the recent actions taken by the Fed with regard 

to raising the interest rate to begin to counter what Alan is calling the housing bubble. Here 

in Utah we can see that perhaps there is a housing bubble especially in St. George and 

definitely in Las Vegas. I think that the Fed’s move was premature and that it should have 

been delayed until spring of next year when new home construction is naturally increased to 

have less of a shock on the new home indicator. 

However the Fed’s move only increased the new home construction rate as more people 

now are hurrying to get the lowest rate possible as they continue to increase. We will see if 

the Fed (Greenspan) knows what he is doing. 

Message [1884] referenced by [1885] and [1901]. First Message by Aaron is [316]. 

[1885] TriPod: Greenspan..? Re: [1884]: I would completely disagree about your 

statement“Here in Utah we can see that perhaps there is a housing bubble especially in St 

George” Where in the country with a metro area can you find a home with as much square 

feet for as little per square foot than in Utah. Our Housing prices have and do fall behind 

almost every state in the country. So I disagree that we are any kind of a bubble. Our state 

is finally catching up to the rest of the country. Our prices have only been increasing since 

early this year. SO NO BUBBLE IN UTAH YET!!!! In my opinion we will increase like 

this for the next couple of years. 


[1886] Guerito: Re: Greenspan..? [1885]: Come January Greenspan will have retired, 

things could get a little interesting. Rates have been moving higher because of the national 

housing bubble in addition to the types of loans that people have been acquiring (interest 

only). The housing market has increased this past year at a faster pace than the previous 20 

years and can’t continue to support this rapid growth, thus I wouldn’t be surprised to see 

somewhat of a correction. However, when the bubble bursts, I don’t see the price of homes 

in the salt lake valley decreasing, just cooling off temporarily. We are still undervalued in 

comparison to the rest of the nation, our population continues to grow and the amount of 

real estate continues to decrease. There is still plenty of room to grow here in terms of home 

prices but don’t expect to see it at the rate we have been experiencing. Another factor that 

has effected the price of homes that hasn’t been mentioned is all of the damage from the 

hurricanes. Because of Katrina there is a shortage of building supplies which has led to an 

increase in the cost of building a new home which in turn will increase the value of existing 

homes. Does this only add to the bubble? 


[1888] Thelonius: Re: Greenspan..? Re: [1885]: on the contrary, inner Salt Lake 

districts are in a sizable bubble. When was the last time you went home shopping? 


-T 


[1889] TriPod: Re: Greenspan..? Re: [1888]: I am in the mortgage market so I know 

the market quite well. I have been doing mortgages for 4.5 years and yes housing seems 

expenseive but look at other parts of the country. On the contrary our housing prices are 

cheap compared to the rest of the country. We get a lot of house for what we pay. 


[1890] McDugall: Re: Greenspan..? Re: [1889]: You cannot compare SLC to other 

parts of the country based solely on price. You need to include factors such as taxes, wages, 

public services, schools, and transportation. SLC has a below-average wages, the public 

schools are border-line average, the public transportation is decent but is showing signs of 

hope, public services are decent, and taxes are below average. As a whole, I think SLC is 

in a bubble because more and more people are not going to be able to afford homes with 

their small wages and above average persons per household. Also, there should be a nice 

glut of foreclosures in the future because of the, about 30% of, people who bought homes 

with arms, interest only loans. When their bills go up 200-300 a month that is going to hurt 

a lot of families and begin a foreclosure boom. How bad of a decline will there be? Who 

honestly knows, its only speculation but it will certainly hurt a lot of families and crush their 

dreams. 


[1891] TriPod: Re: Greenspan..? Re: [1890]: McDugall, I would just say that people 

that bought with arms better get out of them because they are the only thing that is out of 

control right now. The 30yr fixed is still below 6% so they better move quickly. It is not our 

fault that people bought more home because they could get a lower interest with an ARM. I 

would agree that our State is behind economicly compared to other states. Remember so is 

our cost of living. 


[1892] McDugall: Re: Greenspan..? Re: [1891]: I agree that the state is behind, but the 

fact that its not “our fault” people choose arms. Honestly, the finance industry is notorious 

for selling financial products to people that they cannot afford. If you’re paid on commission, 

it is in your interest to sell something at any cost to the individual. Even though, you are 

aware there is a good chance the person will go into financial ruin. I am not specifically 

saying you as an individual practice predatory lending but the industry as a whole has a 

blemished record. 


[1893] MrPink: Blaming the financial industry? In response to McDugall’s comment: 

I feel that blaming the financial industry is short sighted. We have many laws that protect 

consumers from fraudulent financial products/instruments. What it really comes down to 

is laziness. People simply do not do their homework. Many rely on ‘the worker’ at their 

local bank branch to explain everything and sign on to agreements/contracts without reading 

the fine print. Additionally, you get what you pay for. If you do not (or cannot) pay for a 

personal financial adviser you cannot expect the same level of service when entering said 

agreement/contract. 

Message [1893] referenced by [1895]. Next Message by MrPink is [1896].


[1894] Ash: re greenspan. Go onto the web and research many of the economic journals 

out there and you will find that Utah home prices are 25% undervalued even with our wage 

problem. You will also find, as economics teaches us, that wages are sticky. Meaning 

inflation will drive prices up and wages will lag behind for a few years until they come back 

to equilibrium. If you believe in the macroeconomic system we are under now, Utah is at 

equilibrium with its wage relative to prices. If inflation has changed that it will be a few 

years for wages to catch up. 

If any of you are thinking about investing in Utah real estate, don’t wait because prices 

will only increase as they have in CA. Everyone talked about a bubble in CA in the 90’s 

when things started to go crazy. Well, I believe home prices in CA went down by 3% for 

one of the years and then continued to jump by over 10% per year for the next 15 years. So, 

where is your bubble? 

Message [1894] referenced by [1898]. First Message by Ash is [170]. 

[1895] McDugall: Blaming the financial industry? Re: [1893]: Thats a very simplistic 

view of the issue. From what we learned from Marx’s writing, the capitalist will take advantage 

of the worker. Finance workers go to college for four years to learn the trade. And then 

they work as an intern and entry level finance worker to learn even more about the trade. 

It is very short sighted to think that the average person can learn everything there is about 

finance in a short interview with a financial officer. It is the officer who is informed and 

educated, not the “customer” it should be the job of the financial worker to clearly lay out 

all the possibilities of what could happen if they take out the loan, sort of like when you go 

to a financial planner and they offer you different scenarios of what the future could hold. 

The US as a nation needs more financial-like education starting in primary schools so 

we understand more. But saying that it is laziness is, in my opinion, wrong. If financial 

companies tend to hire college educated professionals you cannot expect the average person 

to know as much as the finance professional. 


[1896] MrPink: Re: Blaming the financial industry? Fwd: [1895]: Well, I’m a simple 

gal. Correct me if I’m wrong but I don’t think that loan officers are required to have financial 

degrees. Commercial banks do provide training to loan officers however, this brings me back 

to the point ‘you get what you pay for’. 

Secondly (excuse me if this is too optimistic) but I don’t think that my local Wells Fargo 

loan officer is out to cheat me or hide anything from me. 

I do agree that the motives behind these products is to make money. I studied finance and 

work for an investment firm. There is not denying that my position’s motivation is greed, 

but not manipulation. 

A bit of a tangent but I think it is somewhat appropriate and funny. I refer South Park 

episode ‘Die Hippie, Die’. Download at: 

http://www.southparkx.net/episodes/902-die-hippie-die 


[1898] Adamwest: re greenspan. RE: [1894]: Just to add a little bit about the real estate 

in Utah. My bought an acre in bluffdale (south of riverton, basically straight west from point 


of the mountain) he built his house and about 9 months after he had bought his lot the next 

phase started selling for $80,000 more than what he paid. 

First Message by Adamwest is [78]. 

[1901] MarxSchmarx: Greenspan..? Re: [1884]: Just my two cents on the “housing 

bubble” that we are all afraid of. Greenspan, at one time, stated that the collapse of the 

housing market would have worse effects than any stock market crash. He later toned down 

his statement as to not sound so doomsday-ish. I am not sure that this is the exact number, but 

over the last year Americans have accumulated over $3 trillion dollars in wealth because of 

the appreciation of their real estate. Yes, if the bubble were to burst, it could be catastrophic. 

In Utah, we are seeing homes appreciate at rates that are much higher than in years past. 

What once was a “stagnant” market has turned into a reasonably appreciating market. Yes, 

there are areas that are appreciating faster than others (i.e. Sugarhouse vs. Magna), but for 

the first time in over five years Utahns are seeing the value of their homes rise. 

I don’t in any way feel that the Utah housing market is even approaching bubble status. 

If the bottom of the housing market in Utah were to fall out (very unlikely), there would be 

very little for homeowners to loose because the market is just starting to accelerate. However, 

if the bubble were to burst nationally, I would think that people from different areas 

would consider a move to Utah. As stated in a previous post, some economists believe that 

Utah is undervalued by as much as 25%, which I side with. I believe that our undervalued 

real estate, coupled with a low cost of living would be the attracting factors. Utah saw a 

surge of Californians in the mid-90’s after property values in California started to become 

unaffordable. I believe that Utah will see that trend again, whether or not the national bubble 

bursts. 


[1903] Danske: It does add to the bubble but not as much as some think. The price 

of housing will be strongly affe. It does add to the bubble but not as much as some 

think. The price of housing will be strongly affected by material availability and the current 

economic trends in the market. That is why some areas back east and in California have seen 

steady increases despite changes in the national economic trends. Since housing is one of 

the fundemental needs, economic conditions in the imediate region play a much greater role 

in determining house prices. Utah will continue to be depressed because there are so many 

people that will do anything to stay here. 


[1904] Danske: The bubble is not in the real estate but in the economic conditions 

of the region you look at. For. The bubble is not in the real estate but in the economic 

conditions of the region you look at. For example when boeing hit hard times and cut back 

personnel in Washington the housing market suffered. The trend in housing will follow the 

current trend in the area. Utah is seeing some increase as the economy expands but I don’t 

think we will see anything like California because there are too many people who are willing 

to work for lower wages to stay here. 


[1906] TriPod: Re: Greenspan..? Re: [1892]: Mcdugall,


Predatory Lending you must be several years behind. I would love to see any publication 

or news article in the last 4 years which states the mortgage Industry does or practices 

predatory lending. This is a rediculas statement for you to make. You may want to look at 

the LAW about SECTION 32 loans and how often this actually happens. 


[1907] Thelonius: Re: Greenspan..? Re: [1901]: Just some applied input on housing (as 

many of you have). As was stated, Utah recieved an influx of Californians in the 90’s and still 

continues to do so, though not at the rate that was seen in the 90’s. That influx in Californian 

immigrants was in response to the “undervalued” market in Utah vs. the bubblisciously hot 

market in California, which has not abated. For example, my parents purchased a new home 

in Corona, CA...typically 1 level 3700 sq. foot on 1/9 Acre in a nice suburban Area. Paid a 

reasonable 279,000. They decided to move 3 years later and sold the house the very day it 

was listed for 325, 000. At the same time they sold their home, my grandma had her home 

in Tustin, CA valued at 500, 000(approximately the same layout). 4 years later, the homes 

in her neighborhood, relative to hers are being valued at over 700, 000. In San Diego, my 

brother and sister bought a 2 level 3 bedroom condominium for 113,000, 4 years ago. They 

sold the same Condo last year for 304,000 and moved in to a ramshackle small home in San 

Diego for 550,000. 

Now with this level of appreciation, my parents were looking at selling their new home 

and moving to Salt Lake to buy a Castle, just as the Californian influx of the 90’s did. 

They have been very surprised to see that homes in downtown Salt Lake areas are listed for 

$300,000-500,000, figures not all-together far from what they have seen in areas of So. Cal 

(with the exception of Tustin). It is safe to say that areas of high demand in Salt Lake are 

well aware of money coming into the state from California, and properties in in Salt Lake are 

being appraised for out-of state trends. Utah is by no means independant of the perpetuated 

housing market bubble. 


[1908] McDugall: Re: Greenspan..? Re: [1906]: Tripod, 

Here are some scholarly articiles for your indulgence. And one thing I believe this class 

has taught us, is to look beyond your nose. There are more things than meets the eye. Don’t 

take anything for granted. Oh there is some law to protect us, well the law is only as good 

as the people who enforce it, analyze all the factor. 

http://www.knowledgeplex.org/kp/text document summary/article/relfiles/hot topics/Carr 

Kolluri.pdf 

http://www.responsiblelending.org/pdfs/Quant10-01.PDF 

http://www.huduser.org/Publications/pdf/brd/13Fishbein.pdf 

It may be difficult to quantify exact numbers, but by all means predatory lending does 

exist, is being practiced daily, and has negative effects on society. 



[1909] Thelonius: Re: Marx and Revolution? Re: [1879]: -Just for the love of semantics, 

Marx was not a proponent of Social revolution, but advocated an “evolutionary” 

Socialist-Democracy vs. a “revolutionary” Democratic-Socialism. It’s in the book, i swear. 


[1911] TriPod: Re: Greenspan..? Re: [1908]: You must not have seen the dates on 

these. I asked in the last 4 years since the laws have changed. 


[1912] McDugall: Re: Greenspan..? Re: [1911]: You think in the past few years, years 

of predatory lending would be eradicated? People do not change overnight and anyone who 

believes so is asking for disappointment. And we should believe all has changed after all of 

the scandals of late? 


[1913] McDugall: Re: Greenspan..? Re: [1911]: Also, find me papers saying that its 

been eradicated. I am holding you to the high standards you hold to me. 


[1914] TriPod: Re: Greenspan..? Re: [1913]: I am not holding you to a high standard. I 

just disagree that there is proof in the past couple of years that this still happens. It is frusterating 

to hear people like you make judgements about an industry that they know nothing 

about. I do appriciate your comments but I think your opinion is flawed. I also agree that 

there are people in every industry that take advatage of their position. 


[1916] McDugall: Re: Greenspan..? Re: [1914]: Of course I am making a judgement. 

I have read the scholarly articles and absorbed all of their information. Whereas it seems to 

me that, from insinuation, you may work for the industry, are making an opinion based on 

your observations and not statistical analysis from the industry as a whole. And I do know 

a reasonable amount of information about the finance industry both from formal education 

and working for an institution. 


[1923] Surferboy: Socialism. I’m curious what many of you think about Socialism during 

the Soviet Union. After studying Marx’s view on capitalism why did his higher society of 

socialism fail in the Soviet Union if it is superior to capitalism? 


[1924] Picard: socialism reply. I think socialism or communism failed in the USSR 

because of human nature. Man is very often looking out for himself and nothing else. It just 

took a few corrupted people to change what theoretically could have worked wonderfully 

into an oppressive political system. I don’t believe socialism itself couldn’t have worked 

but it is rather the man in charge of that system who couldn’t manage it correctly. Some 

light versions of socialism have worked quite nicely such as in France and Sweden etc...It 

all comes down to the leadership and greed. 

First Message by Picard is [151]. 

[1927] Thugtorious: Socialism. Professor Hunt gave an interesting interpretation of 

Communist Russia. His analysis is predicated upon the Russian Communist system being 

superimposed upon a capitalistic mode of production. Instead of allowing the workers to 

receive “class conciousness” and dismantle the mode of production, the leaders of Russia


eliminated some crucial steps of Marx’s philosophy and implemented a centralized government 

who’s soul purpose was to run a capitalistic mode of production. I found this theory of 

why Russia failed to be very intriguing. 

Message [1927] referenced by [1928]. First Message by Thugtorious is [29]. 

[1928] COMMI: Socialism. Re: [1927]: What were the crucial steps of Marx’s philosophy 

that Russia eliminated? 


[1929] Avatar: Re: Socialism. Re: [1928]: I think there is no one theory, or one correct 

answer to this question. My understanding of the collapse was that the USSR tried for too 

much, too soon. Which is to say that socialism is supposed to work in the aftermath of 

capitalism and capitalism had not run its course. The biggest problem that resulted from this 

(in the USSR) was the lack of a technological backbone. Capitalism and the huge profits it 

can generate have created massive incentives for tech firms. The USSR couldn’t function, 

in part, because it lacked the technology to take care of the people, or carry its industry in a 

world economy made of capitalists. 

Also, I’ve always thought it was worth bringing up that the USSR failed after decades 

of being crushed by the most powerful (economically and technologically) country on the 

planet- the USA. I think that it is unfair to judge the success of an economic system that is 

being unfairly driven into the ground by powerful adversaries. Just to fend of the obvious 

retort of, “If capitalism beat out socialism in the end, doesn’t that make capitalism superior?” 

I would like to just offer the idea that being the more powerful economic system doesn’t 

make it the best one, or the most fair. 


[1930] Karlwho: socialism. I don’t know that much about socialist USSR, but I would 

like to add my two cents anyway. I agree with Picard’s response on this topic. The guys at the 

top had good intensions to run a socialist society, but after the taste of afflence and power 

they wanted more. The leaders began to seek after money and power, they became selfinterested. 

Soon the leaders were seeking after their best interests, instead of the interests of 

society. Capitalism refects man’s instinct to be self-interested. Socialism is more of a team 

effort, but if one or two are not being team players they can ruin it for everyone. 

First Message by Karlwho is [321]. 

[1938] McDugall: Re: Greenspan..? - lending. Re: [1913]: Even more recent news, 

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2005/12/07/foreclosures up 35 

First Message by McDugall is [143]. 

[1941] Legolas: Re: Socialism. Re: [1929]: I would have to disagree what Avatar said 

because like it or not, we live in a world of competition. Yes, the USSR was being crushed 

by the superpower of the United States, but if socialism at the time was a better system, why 

wasn’t it able to surpass the U.S. and avoid being financially run to the ground by Reagan. 

We live a world far from ‘perfect’; no nation will ever have the chance to rise without intense 

competition from it’s competitors and must prove itself against the current superpower. 

As for why socialism failed in Russia: they skipped some crucial steps, as has been 

stated, in Marx’s evolving economic system. They tried to have capitalism and socialism at 

once, which will not work. Also, they were transforming from an absolute monarchy to a 


republic, that takes years to transition. The entire world was in turmoil and they were trying 

to solve too many issues and make too many changes too quickly. I have not been to Russia, 

but I have been to China and seen the effects of communism; and i think the difference 

between china’s success compared to russia is the chinese have a mentality that gives the 

leaders/presidents absolute power over them. Russia didn’t have that mentality. 

Message [1941] referenced by [1946] and [1952]. First Message by Legolas is [561]. 

[1946] Avatar: Socialism. What exactly are you disagreeing with in [1941]? 

What are you offering as an alternative explanation? 

You agree that USSR was crushed by predatory tactics from the USA, which is exactly 

what I said. You go on to say that the USSR skipped steps. Again, I said the same thing— 

they lacked the technological infrastructure to support a socialist system. 

So, you agree with the two main things I said, but you start your post by saying you 

disagree with me. Did you misread my post, cos’ you’re pretty much saying the same things 

I did. If you want to say something meaningful about my post, answer the question I posed 

in my last sentences. 

Message [1946] referenced by [1955]. First Message by Avatar is [146]. 

[1952] Surferboy: Socialism. Re: [1941]. This is my opinion. The Bolsheviks in the 

Soviet Union skipped obvious steps that were essential if socialism was going to work. There 

was no proletariat to overthrow the bourgeousie. There was no real industrial revolution 

to let capitalism develope before it was replace by socialism. The government controlled 

everything in the economy. In other socialist economies we see the practice of laissez faire 

that allows for the economy to flourish. This was not the case in the soviet union which is 

why it failed. 

First Message by Surferboy is [855]. 

[1955] Thelonius: Socialism. Responding to [1946]. Everyone knows the only factor 

that gave the USSR a shred of economic stability was the Bolshevik Bisquit Company. No 

Bolshevik Bisquits, no Mother Russia. Did Reagan have anything to do with bisquits? How 

would I know, I just work here. 

P.S. Barleywine, laddies, barleywine... 

First Message by Thelonius is [192]. 

Compiled by Hans G. Ehrbar 2013-07-07 04:15:36.

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?