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

U of Utah Econ 5080 2005fa 83
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.
84 2005fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
Next Message by Thugtorious is [232].
[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.
Next Message by Camhol is [591].
[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
Next Message by MK is [729].
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).”