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

U of Utah Econ 5080 2005fa 15
(d) Marx does not believe that there is something like human nature.
[725] MK: B
Next Message by MK is [726].
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,
16 2005fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
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.
Next Message by Michael is [55].
[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.
Next Message by Hans is [60].
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?