An Ontological Statement by Marx - Term Paper Example

Task: Macro and Micro Economics Q: 30. “Give the examples where an ontological ment made by Marx is mis-translated as an epistemological statement”. Marx’s statement regarding ontological analysis of labor is mistranslated as an epistemological statement. This is attributable to Marx’s centrality towards labor when he indicates that labor is the basis of social development. Based on human practice, it is clear that ontological priority of labor exists because no human activity is worthwhile without provision of material conditions that guarantee activity among human beings (Stanley and Wise 1). However, it does not mean that labor is the most valuable practice though some historical perspectives give labor such prominence. This occurs in social structures where development of productive forces is minimal so the labor activity completely occupies the individual’s life. This highlights the need to recognize labor as the centre of the ontology of culture (Stanley and Wise 1). This is because additional aspects of human activity entirely depend on the capability of individuals to provide labor within a stipulated time. Additionally, advancement of productive forces determines the capacity of individuals coupled with the extent of complication of social needs that require labor satisfaction. Marx’s expression “changes his own nature” draws mistranslation, particularly because the word “nature” can have two interpretations. The first meaning relates to human beings as the subjects of the action; a subject performing an activity needs to alter his or her own nature in a definite way to achieve the stipulated targets. The other meaning of “nature” relates to environment and emphasizes the alterations of the world because of intentional activity (Stanley and Wise 1). Additionally, humans alter the world to launch their own social objects to change the course of the society. Q: 66. “Give everyday examples illustrating the contradiction that in everyday practical activity exchange-value is sometimes considered immanent and sometimes considered relative”. Presently, in each practical activity, exchange value may be either immanent or relative. Products attain value because they are expressed in monetary terms. The value form of a product exists after different products have been compared with each other. The value of products is dynamic because it continuously develops based on trading processes (Lendvai 1). Presently, individuals objectify the worth of produced goods to enhance trade. By doing this, the individuals are evaluating and contrasting the value of their efforts. Additionally, while individuals are comparing and justifying the products’ value before exchange, they are also comparing the intensity of their efforts. Therefore, the worth of a product largely depends on the worth of other products regardless of product evaluation (Lendvai). This depicts that exchange value is at times relative. It is imperative to say that immanence is a notion of relationship. Therefore, exchange value is at times transcendental and exceeds the physical features of objects, implying that values exist above the individual senses (Lendvai 1). An example to illustrate this is that the aesthetic worth of a painting is not similar with the textile of the canvas and the oils within it, though the painting cannot exist without these substances. Additionally, the exchange value of an object like diamond cannot subsist without its physical and chemical reality. Similarly, two portions of wood fixed with the figure of a cross may enjoy sacramental value. Therefore, these examples clearly show that exchange value can be immanent or relative. Q: 98. “Take two very different kinds of labor, such as teaching and construction work, and discuss in what respect they are equal”. There exists a relationship between teaching and construction work. Teachers serve as architects of a better future of students because they nurture and monitor their progress, thereby ensuring that these students succeed in the future (Goodlad and McMannon 47). Construction managers direct and synchronize diverse projects such as buildings and roads until their completion. These buildings are future projects, and this indicates a connection between teaching and construction work. This is because buildings and students are future projects that necessitate adequate monitoring and direction to ensure fruition. Teachers can serve as efficient architects of a better future for students if they refrain from selfish interests and focus entirely on mentoring individuals (Goodlad and McMannon, 48). Construction mangers may monitor an entire project or a part of the project. They have the responsibility of forecasting and coordinating all the construction processes. Additionally, they coordinate and oversee the construction processes from the initial development stage until completion. They are directly in charge of the activities involved. Moreover, they determine the most efficient way of acquiring the necessary materials to ensure successful completion of the project. Concurrently, teachers monitor the learning progress of students (Goodlad and McMannon 51). This is because they guide students to understand class work and assist them in the areas of difficulty. Moreover, they oversee the progress of their students from the time of enrollment and search for relevant materials that will assist students in succeeding. Therefore, there exists a correlation between teaching and construction because the main aim of the activities is to ensure fruition of successful projects, with students being the viable projects. Q: 108. “What is value (according to Marx)?” Marx advanced a labor theory on value that stated that common quantitative element is available to all commodities. According to the theory, the value of a certain commodity is dependent on the labor required for the production of that commodity. Commodity value encompasses the amount of labor and the duration within which the labor produces the product. Conversely, Marx reiterated that the values of usage of a commodity are different from each other and cannot undergo transformation. The usage value cannot become the exchange value. The only element that can assume the exchange value is the quantity of labor. This is because this is a common element within all commodities. Using the price of that commodity, the exchange value can assume monetary status. The quantity of labor is measurable by the average amount of hours spent on the labor. Marx referred to this as the socially necessary approach. All commodities are regarded as labor products (Marx 207). According to Marx, the value of a commodity is dependent on the number of hours its production took, the nature of raw materials used based on the duration of their manufacturing, and the fraction of life of the production machine whose manufacture took five thousand hours to make. Ten hours of direct labor, twelve hours of production of raw materials, and 1/1000 of machine’s life that took five thousand hours of production are worth twenty-seven hours (Marx 207). This value is worth twenty-seven hours that can be broken down to ten labor hours, twelve hours of material and five hours of depreciation of capital (Marx 207). Q: 114. “Wouldn't it be better to measure the quantity of labor by output rather than by labor time”? Marx advanced a theory of measuring the quantity of labor depending on the time taken when performing the task. However, some of the modern economists have faulted this approach and subsequently proposed that the quantity of labor should be measured through the use of output instead. The value of a commodity rises proportionally with the length and intensity of the labor performed. Labor input can be measured through the use of the number of hours worked and the number of people employed to perform the task. The changes in the number of hours worked is brought about by variations in the average number of working persons together with the total number of hours worked. The proportionality of disutility to the number of hours worked offers an index to the real cost of labor. It is evident that a better measure of work input is the man-hours as compared to the employment of changes, otherwise known as the real cost of labor. Employment is equally a measure in the labor input. The estimation of the number of average hours worked assumes a direct relation to the production estimate. This method is likely to create an input error (Smith 78). Therefore, it is more instrumental to measure output according to the quantity of labor. Q: 136. “How did Marx "critically prove" that labor under capitalism has a two-edged character”? Capitalism is an economic system that assumes that the means of production and the creation of either goods or services for profit are dependent on private property ownership. However, capitalism critics such as Marx and Engels have had to put this economic system to task by advancing an alternative economic approach. Marx specifically proved that labor under the capitalism system is a double-edged sword. In his first analysis, Marx argues that the majority of the employees mostly work under pressure and other unpleasant and frustrating experiences. This is in contrast with what should actually be happening. Work is supposed to be self impressive, creative and meaningful. These conditions encourage motivation at the work place because they make life satisfying and fulfilling. However, capitalism does not create these conditions for workers. According to Marx, this economic system only serves to rob workers of all the good contents of life. Capitalism ensures that a person is only glued to one specific task throughout his or her life because it emphasizes the division and specialization of labor. Consequently, the worker is deprived of the power to exercise an all round activity that makes him or her complete person (Hudis 57). Marx’s second proof is based on the fact that labor under capitalism only allows a small minority of people to control all aspects of production. The rest of the people who form the majority need to sell their labor to survive. Capitalism ensures that workers only work for someone else, denying them the intrinsic worth of work. In this arrangement, work does not satisfy inner needs but is a means through which outside needs are satisfied. Q: 187 Does Marx contradict himself when he says the simple form of value is difficult to analyze? The form of value is a concept that Karl Marx used as a critique of his political economy. Consequently, a social form that a commodity assumes is different from the tangible utility or its use value as a product that fulfills the desires of human beings. The economic value is manifest in an objective way. Consequently, valued forms are established by the exchange of products. However, it is true that any product represents some value. The amount that typifies this value remains relative. The worth of a commodity is determined through weighing, equating or comparing this commodity to other objects that have clear values. The value and the exchange value are different things altogether. Prices and value are also not similar. In the same breath, there is a clear distinction between the form of value and the substance of value. The same applies to the product value and product prices. The objective of Marx’s value analysis is to provide an explanation of why the value relationships of products are apparent in objective existence acquisition. It also aims to seek the reasons behind the product value changes. This is detached from the valuers who perform their trades. The complexity of these interrelationships makes it difficult to interpret them in a satisfactory manner without eliciting multiple errors. It is against this backdrop that Marx found it difficult to analyze the forms of value. This is because, as Marx clearly puts it, the development of the market trade leads to a proportional increase in the economic relationship between commodity and value prices (Bidet and Fernbach 193). Q: 249 “Compare Marx’s derivation of money with the derivations of money in modern economics”. Marx chose money to be the universal functionality of all commodity forms based on its acceptability and divisible nature. He views money as a matter of accident that needs to be embraced within the societal setting. The money forms are attachable only to the articles of exchange that are expensive. This is a spontaneous and primitive form of portraying the local products in terms of their market value. In the capitalist system, such items as gold and silver were used in place of money. He further demonstrated that the money commodity should show quantitative differentiation. This means that the money needs to be divisible at will. Additionally, it must be capable of being unified from its separate parts. These properties are equally clear in gold and silver. Therefore, they can replace money. This approach is different from money derivations in modern economics. The present day economics consider money as a “medium of exchange, standard of differed payment, store of value and unit of account” (Bidet and David 4). Therefore, it is money alone and not other commodities such as silver or gold that can serve the same function. This presents a distinct correlation between the ideas presented by Max and other persons within the societal and economic setting. Q284: “Explain how value denotes a specific relation of production and not just the general relationship between a producer and his product”. In Marx’s own understanding, the relations of value to production encompass the fiscal, social and scientific relationships. The value of production as espoused by Karl Marx was actually in contradiction with the communal and scientific procedures of production. For a high value of production to be achievable, workers must relate well with their coworkers and the physical utilities at their work places. However, people need freedom and equal access to the market place to establish the value of production. The relationship between value and production spreads in all fields including economics and agriculture. This relationship assumes a cost of production theory of value that states that the condition or price of a product is established by considering the cost of resources that were involved in its production. The facets of production like resources, employment and land are instrumental when determining the cost. Taxation is also considered. The value of production is the measure of the real output of production of an establishment. Additional important components are also present in the production output. The value denotation to production includes the calculation of both gross and net production. The Gross Value of Production is the calculation of the computational operation margin by an establishment. They include the turnover and its deliverables (Kliman 1). Q: 341. “What is Marx’s difference between bourgeois economist and vulgar economists?” Bourgeois economy proponents argue that the economy can transcend beyond the surface appearance. This theory addresses people who lived in urban area. Marx was interested in addressing the domination of the urban workers by their employers. Vulgar economics are a fiscal process not controllable by the state. It is a free market where participants are free to decide what they want. These economics are apparent in different problems that range from the monopolistic competition and industrial society to the countervailing forces. These problems counteract this economy and propel capitalism. This theory lacks fundamental traits, principles and peculiarities (Rubin 82). Bourgeoisie was initially a political term used to refer to the social and economic classes of the western world. In ancient times, the tenure to capital was directly related to the social economic position or standing of a person in the society. This formed the culture of the people then. The present day economics refer to bourgeois as the situation when workers become shareholders in their own companies by investing their pension rewards or putting in their savings. Vulgar economy was an improvement of bourgeoisie that motivated workers ideologically. It sought to support the interests of workers against the harsh economic realities of the capitalist system. Q: 888. “Discuss what did Marx talking about Capital, commodity and Exchange value”. According to Marx, commodities are objects that should fulfill human desires and wants. They are the fundamental units upon which capitalism operates. It is important to follow a basic criterion known as the essential usefulness to evaluate the value of a commodity. Besides, commodities have an exchange value. This value keeps on changing from one commodity to the other and is based on a common relative exchange situation. Exchange value allows a trader to compare the worthiness of one commodity against the other. The medium of measurement for this value is money. The value of a certain commodity in the market is its exchange value (West 121). The most essential components of a commodity include the value attached, its utility, price, and the exchange value. Marx summed up these components to form the exchange values. Nevertheless, it is fundamental to note that Marx bypassed the price as commodity component and instead represented it with the amount or quantity of the said commodity. The two most significant commodities that Marx considers to take the place of money price are the silver and gold. These precious metals are often highly valued in terms of price and their ornamental values. The problem, however, rises from the possibility for them to be divisible to perform real transactions. Works Cited Bidet, Jacques, and David Fernbach. Exploring Marx's Capital: Philosophical, Economic and Political Dimensions. Boston, MA : BRILL, 2006. Print. Goodlad, John, and Timothy McMannon. The Teaching Career. New York, NY: Teachers College Press, 2005. Print. Hudis, Peter. Marx's Concept of the Alternative to Capitalism. Leiden, Boston: BRILL, 2012. Print. Kliman, Andrew. Reclaiming Marx's Capital: A Refutation of the Myth of Inconsistency. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2007. Print. Lendvai, Ferenc. “On the Possibility of Transcendental Materialism. Bu.edu. n.d. Web. 19 September 2012. Marx, Karl. Capital: A Critique of Political Economy. Vol. 3. New York : Cosimo, Inc., 2007. Print. Rubin, I. I. Essays on Marx's Theory of Value. New York: Aakar Books, 2007. Print. Smith, Tony. The Logic of Marx's Capital: Replies to Hegelian Criticisms. Albany: SUNY Press, 1990. Print. Stanley, Liz, and Sue Wise. Breaking out Again: Feminist Ontology and Epistemology. Routledge, 1993. Print. West, Roy. Marx's Labor Theory of Value. New York: iUniverse, 2005. Print. Read More