This essay aims to deliver thoughts about a specific matter discussed in Das Kapital, or just Capital to English readers. A Book written by Karl Marx and published in Paris in 1867. The matter, Commodity, has two different values, accordingly Marx. I will now confront his view with what I understand as a status quo of the actual Market. Putting side by side Marx’s view and the modern Economics view of the same matter.
Moreover, it is always important when you read a Marxist view, to understand that it has Economic and Social implications. Therefore, if we just consider one aspect of his viewing it can become a poor understanding of the matter.
What a commodity is?
First, we need to understand what a commodity is. The Commodity has different meanings in accord with the author that you are studying.
This article is about Karl Marx, therefore we should take the commodity meaning given by Marx: “A commodity is, in the first place, an object outside us, a thing that by its properties satisfies human wants of some sort or another. The nature of such wants, whether, for instance, they spring from the stomach or from fancy, makes no difference.”1
The value of a commodity
Karl Marx understood the production of a product as an amount of labour power externalized and embodied in an article. “We see then that that which determines the magnitude of the value of any article is the amount of labour socially necessary, or the labour time socially necessary for its production”2.
Therefore, a commodity has its value based on the amount of time that a labour spent to make the commodity. In addition, this product may value one hour of work, therefore having a value of exchange determined for this rule as well. Marx gives us an example when he says that 20 yards of linen takes the same amount of time to produce a coat, thus you can say that 20 yards of linen = 1 coat.
So, the value of an article is the time that a Labour, or the average time to make the mathematics easier, takes to make the article.
On the other hand, the commodity has also a use-value, that he explains to be a value that does not consider the time or the effort to make the commodity, but consider social and consume purposes, embodied in nowadays on supply and demand. The latest view makes the producer controlled by the commodity, different from the previous.
In the Capitalism the producer is ruled by the commodity
The author is strongly against the supply and demand rule, where he also says that it “…rules the producers instead of being ruled by them”3. This simple citation embodies the soul of the Planned Economy.
In addition, Marx understands that those rules make the division of labour wrong, where capitalism would force the labour to do a job that he does not want to do “In communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production…”4. In this excerpt, he means that in a capitalist regime you cannot make your wishes, whereas in a communist society you could.
Furthermore, this capitalist relation embodied by the market, makes social interactions wrong where workers are ruled by objects when the society accepts the use-value of a commodity instead of its real value. “…therefore, the relations connecting the labour of one individual with that of the rest appear, not as direct social relations between individuals at work, but as what they really are, material relations between persons and social relations between things”.5
Taking it to Economics
First, let us take everything together and understand. A commodity’s value is the amount of time that a worker took to produce it. Following this rule, you would have a total equality between all kinds of workers. Example, one hour of my work worth the same than one hour of your work, does not matter either what you do or what I do. Furthermore, in communism we can do whatever we want because we are not ruled anymore by the production or the market, we now rule it. Therefore, you are happy doing what you want and will also be happy because it will not make you poor, as long as you work the same hours than everyone.
In addition, no one would be overpaid or underpaid, thus not being obliged to take a job less interesting to get more money.
Unfortunately, we can easily understand why that is impossible. If everyone takes the same amount of money, to do everything and are not obliged to do unpleasant jobs, everyone would probably choose the best job. Would you prefer to work as a miner instead of painting pictures? Would you prefer to work on the fields, which we understand to be a hard job or work producing books and magazines?
We must understand that ignoring the supply and demand means not having supplies anymore, just demands. So, we would have a lot of drawings but no food. Libraries and newspapers full of workers, but no raw material to build our houses.
In addition, if we are free, we would run to supply and demand rule faster than we think. If you love to paint but you have no food, would not you accept pay one hour of food with two hours of painting? I strongly disagree that a man would starve without no reason. Thus, this man or woman would keep doing what he or she loves, but decrease its hour value for having some food or even changing the line of work, to get better paid or to work half of the time for the same amount of “commodities exchanging power” or money.
Therefore, that imaginary situation is unsustainable. You cannot live like this, the market will establish its minimal rules as soon as possible. Moreover, if you fight against it you may face a Holomodor, where you have not enough food for the people. The last for those who consider Holomodor a problem of supply and not a genocide.
Lastly, we must consider the excerpt about the communist society providing freedom. Important to look twice to “…society regulates the general production…”. If I understand it, when society regulates production, you will not do what you want, but what society demands you to do. Therefore, you are probably less free than in capitalism, where you can choose to get less money but do what you want to do.
Social implications
Like previously mentioned, to not have a poor understanding you have to consider the sociology inherent in Karl Marx ideas. Despite modern economic views show that his ideas are unsustainable, sociologically speaking, it could contribute to the happiness of society, if you allow yourself a bit of utilitarianism.
If we could do or work with what we want and get fair payments, we would be much happier. Moreover, one hardly disagrees that people sometimes act in a way that objects are more important than other people or even more important than themselves.
We have to look through it and understand that the simple accumulation of commodities is not the most important thing in a society. However, Planned Economy is not the solution at all.
Finally, we should all be asking ourselves, what is the solution then? Because it looks like we did not find it so far.
1 Capital, p.17, 2013 Wordsworth Edition.
2 Capital, p.20, 2013 Wordsworth Edition.
3 Capital, p.50, 2013 Wordsworth Edition.
4 Capital, p.xvii, 2013 Wordsworth Edition.
5 Capital, p.48, 2013 Wordsworth Edition.
