Summary: Marx and Engels, Capital, “Commodities” (Chapter 1)
Editor’s Note: For this assignment, I needed to read and summarize the published piece or content listed below, and then provide a response or assessment of the writing.
Summary
Marx and Engels define commodity as a material object that satisfies a human want, as well as something that holds use value and value. Commodities are produced by human labor, and that labor is present in the determined value of the commodity, to which Marx adds, “As values, all commodities are only definite masses of congealed labour time.” This labor with a definite aim is necessary for the success of society because that labor, although not valuable in and of itself, produces material objects of value to others. Marx noted a distinction that people who produce to satisfy their needs produce use value, but do not produce a commodity because a commodity requires use value for other people. Marx explains how through relative value and value, the exchange value of commodities led to the universal exchange unit of currency (at the time of writing, that currency was gold). Marx also defines fetishism of commodities as a relation between men and the products of labor, noting “It is only by being exchanged that the products of labour acquire, as values, one uniform social status, distinct from their varied forms of existence as objects of utility.”
Response
First, I’d like to give credit to Marx (and Engels) for being so passionate about their subject and the analysis of the commodity. I never realized so much could be said about the development of commodities and their use value, exchange value, and value. The idea of a commodity and how a community chooses to address and manage commodities is an interesting topic, but not one that I consider much these days unless I’m studying an economic or political system. Having read about Marxism a bit in high school and in my undergraduate years, the entire concept was hardly foreign to me, but I’d never delved into so much detail about a single attribute of the Marxism ideology. The process and development that led to a universal exchange unit, currency, was interesting and probably the most intriguing portion of the chapter for me. From a historical point of view, it’s clear that Marx had a very thorough understanding of how currency came about and why it will likely never go away—there will always be some form of a universal exchange unit, even if that exchange unit evolves from currency to something else.
When Marx went into his idea of a social system (page 51) and people working together as a social unit to produce commodities, rather than working as individuals, I was hoping he’d lead to an equally-detailed analysis of why he thought this system was better than the capitalist system, but perhaps that’s a later chapter in the book. Marx calls the people working in that social labor construct “free,” but they’re all working to produce the commodities necessary for subsistence within the community. Those commodities are then redistributed to the people by whatever governing power is in place based on a distribution plan established by said power. I don’t understand how Marx can believe these people are in any way “free” under this social construct. The system establishes a clear lack of motivation to labor and produce anything above and beyond the minimum amount necessary for the social system to subsist. This lack of motivation will, undoubtedly, subsequently lead to a lack of mental and physical ambition, eroding the laborers’ will to produce even the minimal amount of commodity required to keep the social community subsisting. I see this system beneficial to any one person who is not physically capable of laboring to produce enough to subsist, but I’m failing to understand why anyone who values their labor, talent, and mind would voluntarily succumb to such a system. Of course, perhaps this is where Althusser’s false consciousness comes into play and the people in a social system such as this are unable to see that the system, or ideology, itself is not beneficial to their well-being, yet they continue to participate in it.
My disagreements with Marx aside, the idea of labor and commodities and how that labor is viewed and valued, whether in the form of the commodity or as a social value, clearly has a very unique and intriguing effect on literature and other cultural art.