Subject: Reading Marx - Part III
Chapter 3 - Money, or The Circulation of Commodities
p. 252 - " Money is the absolutely alienable commodity, because it is all
other commodities divested of their shape, the product of their universal
alienation." Explain.
p. 252 - Marx refers to the process of circulation of commodities as their
metamorphoses - Explain.
p. 254 - How does the process of circulation of commodities differ from
the direct exchange of products?
Chapter 4. The General Formula for Capital
Concepts to remember:
The explanation of the circulation of money and its transformation into
capital is a bit convoluted but, if followed carefully, you will find it
logical and understandable. The goal is to attain a good grasp of the
argument, to understand how and why M - C - M becomes M - C - M'
p. 260 - What is the final goal of the simple circulation of commodities?
How does it differ from the goal of the circulation of money?
p. 260 - Why is the movement of capital "limitless"?
p. 261 - How does Marx define the capitalist? What is the relationship
he postulates between objective economic processes and capitalists'
subjective motives?
Are use values the main capitalist goals? Why?
p. 262 - "... while the miser is a capitalist gone mad, the capitalist
is a rational miser." Explain.
>From Marx's observations about capitalists and the connections between
them and their objective conditions, what sociologically relevant
inferences can you draw, useful to apply Marxist theoretical tools to the
analysis of non-economic social phenomena?
pp. 262 -264 - What is the process of self-valorization of capital? How
is it that value acquires the ability to add value to itself, to "lay
golden eggs"?
Chapter 6 - The Sale and Purchase of Labor Power
In this chapter, Marx unveils the fundamental reason why value appears
capable of self valorization or, to state it in the language of earlier
political economists, why "money begets money." What is this reason?
What kind of peculiar commodity do capitalists find in the market?
Why is it that the source of value cannot be found either in the act
of purchase nor in the act of sale?
Define labor power.
What conditions must be fulfilled for the owner of labor to be able to
purchase labor power in the market? Footnote 60 very interesting.
Are market relations relations among equals? In what sense?
The discussion of labor contracts is very useful - see footnote 61 also.
What historical conditions compel people to sell their labor power?
Under capitalism, sellers of labor power are free in a double sense.
Explain.
p. 266 - What are the theoretical implications of this statement:
"nature does not produce on the one hand owners of money or commodities,
and on the other hand men possessing nothing but their labor power."
pp. 266-267 What are the historical conditions necessary for the
existence of capitalism? Could capitalism come into existence just
because of the emergence of commodity production, markets and money?
Why?
p. 268 - 269 How is the value of labor power determined? What social
relations and historical elements enter in the production and
reproduction of labor power?
Is Marx's analysis of the production and reproduction of labor
power useful to analyze those processes today? If yes, give a well
developed argument and examples. If you think otherwise, give a well
developed argument to substantiate your standpoint.
p. 269 - "The value of labor power can be resolved into the value of a
definite quantity of the means of subsistence." Feminists have been very
critical of this view; Can you think why?
p. 270 - "The capacity for labor is nothing unless it is sold." Explain.
p. 271 - 272 Because of the peculiar characteristics of the commodity labor
power, workers advance credit to the capitalists. Explain.
p. 272 - 273 What is the use value of labor power? How do capitalists
consume it? Where do they consume it?
p. 273 - Outline Marx's explanation for the "secret of profit making."
How does Marx describe the sphere of the circulation of commodities and
the sphere of production? What relationships does he postulate between
the two? Are his and Weber's descriptions qualitatively different? How?
In what ways do they overlap or coincide?