Marxist Econ Analysis



Money and commodity are considered as value forms or means by which a value may exist and this is quite analogous to pointing out that the value placed on money is equal to the value placed on commodity once the money is utilized to purchase the commodity. In the process, money translates itself to commodity in value so despite the absence of literal transformation, the metaphor with value works to convert money as one form of value to commodity as another. This is basically why Marx finds it conducive to begin with commodities as groundwork for discourse on capital. If commodity runs out of value, the making of capital, which also depends on the projected output, would be insignificant. To Marx, in the building of an identity as a capitalist, one works under circumstances of trade in which a capital initially bears no potential but is gradually generated as long as negotiating equivalents involving commodities takes place. (2) What is the distinction that Marx makes between use-value, exchange-value, and value? On exchange-value, Marx claims that “exchange-value appears to be something accidental and purely relative, and consequently an intrinsic value.” Marx additionally points out that there emerges “contradiction in terms” attached to the exchange-value where exchange-value is expected to be similar with commodities of interest though it functions in another domain. In other words, while exchange-value may be expressed through a specific commodity, its evaluation cannot be based solely on objects of trade common to it. As such, during exchange, a value of a set of goods or service may reflect the value of a different set of goods or service and the commonality in the reflection of their worth only works in processes bounded by the exchange or trade in occurrence. On the other hand, use-value is basically perceived as the value of something that is found in its use. Eventually, Marx provides the corresponding definition stating that “The utility of a thing makes it a use-value” where he adds “Being limited by the physical properties of the commodity, it has no existence apart from that commodity.” So, use-values would only materialize when the product undergoes consumption or utilization so that its value is identified via utility or certain characteristics for which it is taken advantage of. Through Marx’s labour theory of value, an economic value is “inherent in objects. remains constant despite changing demand, the passage of time, and other factors. and can be ‘objectively determined’ by calculations based upon some fundamental scientific principle.” However it takes effect, as long as it is intrinsically built on commodity, value would keep its essence whether it shrinks or expands in magnitude. It turns out that value is ‘what something means to someone’ in simple terms and the meaning of a commodity on the basis of its known economic significance or social relevance serves as its value. (3) Is value an inherent property of all things produced in every mode of production? In other words, does value exist in non-commodity producing economies? For Marx, the ‘