Commodity Driven Economy?

In this paper I have focused on the position of labour in relation to commodities, matter and use-value. And it is in this relationship that we will find what Marx perceives the value of labour to be. I will also highlight the difference between what Marx believes an aimless expenditure of labour would be, and in doing so discuss the disjuncture present in South Africa in a commodity driven economy.

So let us dissect the terms. Firstly: Commodities. Commodities for Marx are constituted as commodities if they have either a) value or b) use value. Use value being the objects propensity to be useful. The qualities that Marx attributes to the use value of commodities are as follows.

11)      They are independent from the labour which produced them

22)      The use value of a commodity is only realised in its consumption

33)      It constitutes the substance of all wealth. Wealth being a societal construct. (What I believe this to mean is that the more useful a commodity is within a given society the more it is worth. For example a can opener in a society with no cans has no value, where as a can opener on an island full of canned food and no rocks would be an object of extreme use-value)

44)      The use value of a commodity is the material depository of exchange value

Now, how does labour relate to commodities? According to Marx if the same amount of work or labour time goes into the making of a product, then those products are of equal value. But value must also be measured in relation to quantity. The value of a commodity decreases as the quantity increases.  But increases as the quality and the amount of labour time that go into the commodity increase.  So we can see that more labour per commodity equals more valuable commodities, and conversely less labour per commodity equals less valuable commodities, in relation to quality and quantity.

In order for labour to create a commodity it must be introduced into productive labour in which it works with earthly matter in order to transform that matter into a commodity.  But in a capitalist society the labourer does not own the means of production necessary to produce commodities and so he must sell his labour power to a capitalist who owns the necessary equipment. In doing this the labourer exchanges his labour for money. The labourer must do this because wealth in a capitalist society is constituted by use-value, which is embodied in commodities.  He cannot purely do the amount of labour necessary to survive because the capitalist must create surplus value off of the commodities which he the labourer creates, but does not own. In order to create this surplus value the capitalist takes the production of commodities and reduces them to the effort of a group of labourers as opposed to a single individual. So if you look at a production line on a film set, take Labyrinth for example in which a mid-evil village is created out of poly euro thane. The set starts with the poly euro thane being set in moulds of brick walls. The moulded slabs which emerged must then be scrubbed, after scrubbing they are coated with coprox, and taken outside to dry. Once dry the base layers of paint are applied, and once again taken out to dry. Once dry they slabs are all taken to the set where they are constructed by the fabricators. After fabrication is complete another round of painting is done in order to accomplish the finished product. Each of these processes requires individuals to do specific tasks in order to create the greater commodity. So instead of producing one actual commodity each the necessary labours are divided. Because of this division and removal of the individual labourer from the commodity, the film set, the capitalist can make surplus value off his commodity because the value of it is related to labour power expended. But this, the labour power, is calculated amongst a group and not an individual. Surplus value is then further increased through extended working hours, and worker productivity.

So we can now see the relation of the value of labour to commodity under a capitalist system. It is clearly an exploitative one, in which the value of the labourer is degraded in the process of making surplus capital. It is a situation in which the labourer has very little control of his work hours and pay rate. But is forced into labour for he has no common land on which to survive with just simple modes of production like sustainable farming.

With this brief introduction to Marx’s theory of labour I would like to draw your attention to the difference between labour and the expenditure of labour power. Labour according to Marx is productive activity with an aim, whereas expenditure of labour power is productive activity without an aim. This baffles me slightly. What sort of expenditure of labour power does not have an aim? My guess is that because we are talking about a capitalist system the aim of the process of labour would be the production of commodity. This, I believe, is a terrible aim, probably worse than the Socratic drive for truth via logic. For this aim shifts the whole structure of society into a commodity driven economy. While it is true that commodities are a necessary part of an economy, the aim of a society should not be to produce commodities, but to ensure that people have the necessary commodities in order to live. As we can see in our South African society we have a surplus of wasted commodities, and a large rate of poverty and unemployment. The question I will pose you is how can this disjuncture be eradicated?