Ryan Schram's Anthrocyclopaedia

Anthropology presentations and learning resources

User Tools

Site Tools


commodities

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
commodities [2014/08/14 23:14]
ryans
commodities [2014/08/16 00:00] (current)
ryans
Line 7: Line 7:
 To understand what makes a commodity different than any other object, we have to talk about value. We have to ask what we mean by saying something is worthy, valuable, or good. Many things are useful, but it is hard to compare this value - its use value - to anything else. Shoes are good for keeping feet warm. Mobile phones are good for calling people… ​ umm… Mobile phones are good for texting. How can we express the value of a text in terms of the value of shoes? How shoey is that mobile phone? You see? It's hard to compare different use values because they are qualitatively different things. ​ To understand what makes a commodity different than any other object, we have to talk about value. We have to ask what we mean by saying something is worthy, valuable, or good. Many things are useful, but it is hard to compare this value - its use value - to anything else. Shoes are good for keeping feet warm. Mobile phones are good for calling people… ​ umm… Mobile phones are good for texting. How can we express the value of a text in terms of the value of shoes? How shoey is that mobile phone? You see? It's hard to compare different use values because they are qualitatively different things. ​
  
-And yet people do compare them when they exchange them. Somehow there must be a common basis for comparison. Like Adam Smith, David Ricardo and the other “worldly philosophers"​ (Heilbroner 2011 [1953]), ​classical political economists, Marx argued that what made something valuable was the work that went into making it. Without that energy from work, there would be no phone or shoe, just inert matter. As the rural Chinese woman working in the factory carefully assembled the motherboard of the iPhone, her feet probably had shoes. The shoes made her feet warm and allowed her to work for another hour of her 10-hour day. So you could say that the value of the shoes, not to mention food, clothes, and other necessities,​ contributed to the value of the phone, because it contributed to the worker’s capacity for labor. Economic activity, for the worldly philosophers,​ is ultimately a process of channeling and converting the energy of human labor.+And yet people do compare them when they exchange them. Somehow there must be a common basis for comparison. Like Adam Smith, David Ricardo and the other “worldly philosophers"​ (classical political economists), Marx argued that what made something valuable was the work that went into making it (Heilbroner 2011 [1953]). Without that energy from work, there would be no phone or shoe, just inert matter. As the rural Chinese woman working in the factory carefully assembled the motherboard of the iPhone, her feet probably had shoes. The shoes made her feet warm and allowed her to work for another hour of her 10-hour day. So you could say that the value of the shoes, not to mention food, clothes, and other necessities,​ contributed to the value of the phone, because it contributed to the worker’s capacity for labor. Economic activity, for the worldly philosophers,​ is ultimately a process of channeling and converting the energy of human labor.
  
 Unlike his predecessors,​ Marx thought that the development of the commodity form was a unique event in history, unlike anything else that had come before. Indeed, gifts are nothing like commodities. When you buy a phone or shoes, you don’t have any obligations to be in a relationship to the person who sells it to you. Buyer and seller are both only looking after their self-interest. What is different about a commodity is that it is an alienable form of value. It is something that can be owned as private property. The worker who created it and gave it life has no claims over it. There is no [[1002:​4.1#​gifts_have_spirit|hau]] in a commodity. ​ Unlike his predecessors,​ Marx thought that the development of the commodity form was a unique event in history, unlike anything else that had come before. Indeed, gifts are nothing like commodities. When you buy a phone or shoes, you don’t have any obligations to be in a relationship to the person who sells it to you. Buyer and seller are both only looking after their self-interest. What is different about a commodity is that it is an alienable form of value. It is something that can be owned as private property. The worker who created it and gave it life has no claims over it. There is no [[1002:​4.1#​gifts_have_spirit|hau]] in a commodity. ​
commodities.txt · Last modified: 2014/08/16 00:00 by ryans