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

U of Utah Econ 5080 2005fa 71
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.
Next Message by Michael is [299].
Question 111 is 701 in 2003fa, 110 in 2004fa, and 126 in 2007fa:
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
72 2005fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
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.