Help me Understand Marx

[OrderedAnarchy]

In SSCI 101, we read a bunch of old-school political philosophers, among them Marx and Engels. For an assignment, I have chosen to compare and contrast the writings of these men. Engels is pretty easy to understand, but Marx is not. I am specifically stuck on Money, which is my favorite so far, and The Fetishism of the Commodity, which makes me ask myself "what the fuck?" I will quote what I believe to be the most important lines in each piece below and ask you guys.


The table continues to be wood, an ordinary, sensuous thing. But as soon as it emerges as a commodity, it changes in to a thing which transcends sensuousness.Wood is indeed ordinary, but how in hell does he conclude that it is sensuous (erotic?), and how does its transformation into a commodity change that? A commodity would, it seems to me, being a product of human labor for the sole purpose of causing pleasure in other humans, be more sensuous than the raw materialsl.


The value character of the products of human labor becomes firmly established only when they act as magnitudes of value.Value character is basically that which economists call market value, correct? But what are magnitudes of value? is he suggesting that class division is alright until the upper class assigns values to people and their abilities?


Wherein the producers of coats and boots brings these commodities into a relation with linen, or gold or silver (and this makes no difference), as the universal equivalent, the relation between their own private labor and the collective labor of society appears to them in exactly this absurd form.Tell me if this paraphrase captures the depth of the sentence: When the products of labor are assigned an utterly abstract, quantitative value such as 100 strips of linen or 2 ounces of gold, the result is that sweaters cease to be valuable because they keep us warm, but because 43, or 85, pieces of linen were paid for them. Am I right to suppose that this is bad because it encourages us to think not of quality or usefulness but only of price?

Those were all from The Fetishism of the Commodity. Money is easier, but I do have a few questions, which I will post later.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 10:45 pm

The table continues to be wood, an ordinary, sensuous thing. But as soon as it emerges as a commodity, it changes in to a thing which transcends sensuousness.Wood is indeed ordinary, but how in hell does he conclude that it is sensuous (erotic?), and how does its transformation into a commodity change that? A commodity would, it seems to me, being a product of human labor for the sole purpose of causing pleasure in other humans, be more sensuous than the raw materials.
Obviously you are misunderstanding what he means by "sensuous". He means something that is aprehended by human sences: it has a weight, a colour, smell, a texture, makes a characteristic noise when knocked, etc.

The table transcends mere "sensuosness" in that it has now a value, which is something that cannot be aprehended by human sences.



The value character of the products of human labor becomes firmly established only when they act as magnitudes of value.Value character is basically that which economists call market value, correct? But what are magnitudes of value? is he suggesting that class division is alright until the upper class assigns values to people and their abilities?
No. Value character is the fact that a commodity has a value. And this value only "becomes firmly established" when the commodity has a value magnitude. Ie, the character value is established by the fact that a table is worth four chairs.

I fail to understand what you mean about class division and it being alright; it doesn't seem to follow from Marx's words.



Wherein the producers of coats and boots brings these commodities into a relation with linen, or gold or silver (and this makes no difference), as the universal equivalent, the relation between their own private labor and the collective labor of society appears to them in exactly this absurd form.Tell me if this paraphrase captures the depth of the sentence: When the products of labor are assigned an utterly abstract, quantitative value such as 100 strips of linen or 2 ounces of gold, the result is that sweaters cease to be valuable because they keep us warm, but because 43, or 85, pieces of linen were paid for them. Am I right to suppose that this is bad because it encourages us to think not of quality or usefulness but only of price?

It is a possible interpretation. More soberly, it means that the relations between human labourers appear as relations between things. Instead of the baker baking breads for the shoemaker, and this latter making shoes for the baker, a shoe is worth a certain number of loaves of bread; a relation that is usually mediated by a third commodity (the universal equivalent): a shoe is worth a certain weight of gold, which, in turn, is worth a certain number of loaves of bread.

Luís Henrique

[OrderedAnarchy]

Here is my thesis; but please don't take offense.

The works of Marx and Engels are clearly very different in style, method, and even purpose. While Marx relies more on dialectics and the assumption that he will have a rational audience, Engels is more research-based and experiential. Marx writes as a philosopher, using logic to prove the validity of statements that are not common sense; Engels writes as and for the common man, drawing clear chains of cause-and-effect between things like garbage and poor health, stressful workdays and drunkenness. The purpose, the reason that Marx is so much more philosophical, is to provide an explanation that for the conditions that Engels and others observed. Marx built the theory that eventually became Materialism; Engels proved it.

This is probably slanted; we only read two by Marx and one by Engels. But is this at least sort of accurate?

[RedStarOverChina]

Marx spent the last of his years int he british Library doing research...He was definately a researcher. Though indeed, his habbit of using capitalist statistics against capitalism is learned from Engels.

I think both Engels and Marx tried to make their writings more accessable to average Joes, but Engels was simply a much better writer than Marx, thats why his works are easier to understand.


Marx built the theory that eventually became Materialism; Engels proved it.

And I dont really agree with this part...Dont know how one can actually "prove" historical materialism.

[praxicoide]

For me it's the exact opposite. I deeply enjoy Marx's prose in all its sharpness, its witticisms, its uncompromising critique (Misery of Philosophy, anyone?). He's one of the greatest philosophers not only because of what he said, but because of the way he said it. Engels doesn't come close.

[RedStarOverChina]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13, 2007 07:06 pm
For me it's the exact opposite. I deeply enjoy Marx's prose in all its sharpness, its witticisms, its uncompromising critique (Misery of Philosophy, anyone?). He's one of the greatest philosophers not only because of what he said, but because of the way he said it. Engels doesn't come close.
Are we talking about the same Marx here? :lol:

Marx has been called "the greatest satirist since Jonathan Swift" with some justice. But his writing style is just way too confusing for both us and even his contemporaries.

[OrderedAnarchy]

Marx was a wonderful philosopher; no debate there. But he wrote for the intelligentsia, to show his peers the validity of his claims. Engels got his hands dirty. Reading Engels, its hard to disagree with the simple prose. I'm no gen ius, and therefore Marx is more tricky.

[Spasiba]

Fairly stupid question, but why aren't there any Engelists out there? If he's so much easier to understand, you'd think more people would follow his thinking over Marx.

[OrderedAnarchy]

Well, George Bush is easier to understand even than Engels. More of us follow Marx than Engels for the same reason we follow Engels before Bush: he is more intelligent, even if a little harder to understand, and makes good arguments amidst all the jargon.