In Capital Volume I, Marx discusses the concept of use-value verses exchange-value. According to Marx, use-value is inherent in a commodity while exchange-value is subject to change based upon an ever-changing market. This concept is very similar to Adam Smith’s natural and market price. Smith stated that the natural price of a commodity is static while the market price is subject to change based on supply and demand (see Volume I, Book I of the Wealth of Nations, page 63).
Marx goes on to further examine commodities in a social context. He states that there are “material relations between persons and social relationships between things” in a capitalist society (321). Marx believes that only when this social exchange occurs do objects gain exchange-value. He believes that this exchange allows commodities to have exchange-values separate from their use-values. I think it is important to also consider Marx’s idea of “material relations” that exist between people in a capitalist society. This relationship seems to once again point out the social alienation of the worker that we have discussed in regards to previous excerpts by Marx. How is it that inanimate objects can have social relationships while each individual worker has material relationships with his fellow man?
No comments:
Post a Comment