SOCI370/capitalbygroup2

Capital and the Values of Commodity - "Karl Marx"

Commodities

We live in a world where commodities are the highlight of our living; there are many producers and many consumers. Marx defines “A commodity is... an object outside of us,... it’s properties satisfies human wants of some sort or another” (p. 40). A commodity can also be used in very diverse ways; it has both a view of quality and quantity.

Use Value

Using a thing gives it use-value, things also have an exchange value. Use-values all have ways of measurement for example pounds of fruit. Use-values are given a life form once we use them. To explain use-value let’s take the example of the Iphone 7 which Apple has recently launched into the market. It’s really popular, many people have pre-ordered and its really valuable for most. But the only reason it’s valuable or people care about it is because it is being consumed. It’s use-value is given to it because it is being used by humans. Nobody would even care for the Iphone if it was not consumed by anyone.

Exchange Value

Exchange-value is when things are exchanged for something else of value. Marx gives the example of wheat being exchanged for blacking, silk and gold to explain. I am going to take a look at an example which is a little easier to understand. Let’s take for instance that you go to the store and buy a jacket, you come home and decide that you don’t like the jacket as much as you did in the store. The next day you go back and exchange that jacket for two t-shirts. Because you exchanged the jacket for two t-shirts that must mean that the shirts are“replaceable by each other, or equal to each other.” (p. 41).

Products of labour

Both use-values and exchange-values are similar in the sense that they both are made through the process of labour. The Iphone and the jacket exchanged for two t-shirts are all made by humans through the process of human labour which makes them exactly alike even though in our world one may have more value over the others.

¶ 12-17: Jaden Lau

In his discourse on the values of commodities, Marx identifies three measurements of value: utility, exchange, and finally labour value. In short, this is to be understood as the quantity of labour that has been poured into the production of the commodity in defining its value. For instance, we can take this to understand why a quality-craftsmanship chair is priced more highly than several planks of wood, even if the cuts and volume of lumber are equivalent both in quality and quantity. This is because more labour has been put into producing the chair from its base materials. Individually, however, the quality of the individual producer is not significant as the unit of measurement – “labour-time” – is taken from an average. The conditions of production are also factored in; this is why strawberries are more expensive in some seasons or locations than others – because the conditions for growth facilitate or hinder production, thus affecting the labour as it needs to be invested and consequently, its value.

However, items should not be evaluated strictly in consideration to labour value, for natural resources such as clean air water have virtually no labour-value – nobody intentionally put in labour to produce these – and yet they maintain a high utility value, being essential to human life. An item, when produced, only becomes a commodity that can be sold if it has utility value to another person; its utility to the producer is inconsequential in regards to its status as a commodity. In this regard, it is dangerous as a capitalist society as the desire to profit and commodify can foreseeably, in one way or another, lead to the tragedy of the commons wherein our planetary natural resources will be depleted and destroyed due to the individualistic actions of entities seeking to produce commodities.

¶ 1-10: Barbara Peng

Earlier, Marx explained how a commodity has a use-value if it has some property that quenches a human want. In this section, he shows not only that labour itself (i.e. useful labour) is a creator of use-value but also that without useful labor, there can be no life. Here is one of the two-fold relationships that Marx exemplifies: “matter and labour” (Marx 44). For example, trees are a matter of Nature. Man exercise useful labour to produce objects of utility like paper, maple syrup, soap, paint, oils and more. Humans sustain themselves by extracting from available materials and transforming them into something of utility.

Additionally, Marx introduces the “division of [useful labour]” which corresponds to the deliverance of a variety of use-values to mankind (Marx 43). A contemporary example is the university institution where people seek different use-values—education, research, career opportunity, social outlet…etc. Consequently, the university is a highly complex system with a division of useful labour from the president to the board of governors to enrollment service personnel to the food services’ chefs to even the construction workers.

The present day division of labour is a far cry from the simple terms that Marx described as the “qualitative difference between useful forms”. It has lead to a whole host of social inequality issues like wage disparity and social stigma around different types of labour. Status and social prestige play a prominent role, thus making the “division of [useful labour]” a complicated and even troublesome phenomenon.

¶ 11-16: Priscilla Wong

Marx suggests that the value of a commodity, in relation to labour, is determined by the “expenditure of human labour-power”. Labour-power exists in every individual and everyone is capable of providing simple labour. Despite the possession of greater knowledge or more proficient labour provided by certain individuals, the “skilled labour” would still be accounted for as the standard “simple unskilled labour” but at a greater quantity of it. As a result, the greater the quantity of labour provided in the production process, the higher the value of the commodity would be. Regardless of the change in quantity of labour and its’ effect on the value, the quality and the use-value of the commodity would stay the same. For instance, Apple Inc. has recently launched the new iPhone 7 and it has been high in demand (use-value). Specific models such as the Jet Black version of the phone is out of stock in Apple retail stores until next month. Rumours indicate that there is a “logjam” causing a delay in the shipment of the stock . This requires a greater input of time (quantity of labour) into the logistics process (production) leading to a higher resale value of this device by other consumers. The use-value and the quality of the iPhone 7 remains the same, however, the resale price (exchange-value) on e-bay has surpassed that of the original price. In addition, Marx draws attention to the idea of having a high demand (use-value) of a commodity would cause the material wealth to increase. On the other hand, an increase in material wealth may lead to a decrease of the exchange-value. This is due to the twofold nature of labour; concrete, productivity of useful labour determines the use-value while the abstract aspect of human-labour determines the value of the commodity.

P. 46: Nayantara Sudhakar

In this passage Marx explains that each commodity can be expressed in two ways: form of value, and exchange value. He describes form of value to be the commodity’s “physical or natural form”, which helps fulfil human needs. For example, a pillow used for comfort. The same pillow also has an exchange value, or its “social form”. This can be understood as the commodity’s value as compared to other commodities. In this case, the pillow can be compared to or even exchanged with a bag of cotton. Marx goes on to state that “value of commodities has a purely social reality”. With this statement he highlights that although all commodities have human labor as the origin, they differ from commodity to commodity based on their form of value and thus their exchange value.

Capital and the Fetishism of Commodities* - "Karl Marx"

P. 47: Nayantara Sudhakar

Marx continues to break down form of value for us into relative value and equivalent value. He emphasizes that relative value and equivalent value are “intimately connected, mutually dependent, and inseparable”, while at the same time being “mutually exclusive”. With this he articulates that a commodity can only be either or. In order for the commodity to be labeled as either a relative value or an equivalent value “depends entirely upon whether it is the commodity whose value is being expressed or the commodity in which value is being expressed.” In the case of the pillow and the bag of cotton, the cotton expresses its value in the pillow, and the pillow serves as the value in which the cotton is expressed. Marx indicates that the relative value, the cotton, can only be expressed relatively (as compared to the pillow), therefore leaving the pillow to be its equivalent.

Overall, Marx is suggesting that a single commodity is defined by its form of value, and its exchange-value. Within its form of value, it can either take the position of relative value or equivalent value. Most importantly, he highlights that a single commodity only exists due to its relation with other commodities.

Capital and the Values of Commodity - "Karl Marx"

Beginning of this section up to where Group 4 starts: Tiffany Hanna

Marx outlines the fetishism of commodities in such that social relationships exist between what the labourer produces. The individual labourer has no connection with other producers until articles of utility are exchanged. The affiliation among labourers is explained as “material relations between persons and social relations between things”. These material relations between individuals further highlight how the value of commodities are mostly recognized as intrinsic value arising from the nature of the product. Meanwhile, Marx argues that we fail to notice that value arises from the expenditure of the labourer himself. This is familiar in modern society as we are often caught in social relations that have been formed on the basis of exchange where the true relationship lies in the commodity itself. We exchange money for products that are useful to us without realizing that the product ties us to the individual who has produced it. The labour of society is determined directly by value resulting from the act of exchange between products over the value that results from the production of the individual labourer. The social relationships that we believe exist are often masked by commodities that possess social characteristics that have bonded humans under material relations.

Comment from Rita(Qiao) Li: As Marx argues, "we fail to notice that value arises from the expenditure of the labourer himself." It is true that as many of the societies around the world become consumption-oriented, our true relationship between humans has been transferred to be commodified. Our daily life has become more involved with exchange of goods.However, I believe that the right way of creating a true relationship is still important in our society. people need to buy commodities, but they also need to communicate with others and share feelings with them. (do these with real humans, not with commodities).