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

U of Utah Econ 5080 2005fa 11
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.
Next Message by Thelonius is [236].
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
12 2005fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
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.