'Capital' is right; George is wrong

[Philip L Ferguson <plf13@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

George P writes:

>It is clear from many of the responses made in relation to my above
>posting that >there is a lot of ignorance, confusion and down right
>refusal to face facts.

George, the ignorance is on your part.


>To elaborate: The point is that the wealth of capitalist society does not
>present >itself "as an immense accumulation of commodities." Much of the
>wealth of capitalist >society is in the form of factories. Factories are
>forms of capital but not >commodities. The factories are a form of fixed
>capital. Fixed capital is not a >commodity form.

Wrong.  A factory is a form of capital (fixed capital) *for capitalist B
who buys it*.  But a factory first has to be built by a construction
company, capitalist A.  It is built by said construction company for the
market and sold - ie it is produced as a commodity.  Other fixed capital
within the factory - the machines - is also originally produced as
commodities, by capitalist C, the capitalist who owns the machine-making
firms.


>Much wealth too assumes the form of use values. Capital assumes different
>forms. It >assumes the form of money, of circulating capital, of fixed
>capital, of variable >capital. Capital also assumes the form of the
>commodity.

And the fixed capital and circulating capital, before they become these in
the hands of the capitalist who buys them and uses them as elements of his
*productive capital* are produced as commodities and sold on the market -
factories, machines, oil, iron etc.

The variable capital is that spent on labour-power, and labour-power in
capitalist society is. . . you guessed it, a commodity!


>The thousands of cars on the roads and televisions and computers in homes
>are not
>commodities. They are use values.

Eh?  George all commodities are use-values anyway, and in capitalist
society most use-values are produced as commodities.

A commodity contains both use-value and exchange value.  It is *a use-value
for the purchaser* and *an exchange value for the capitalist who produces
it*.  It is therefore a nonsense to say that cars and televisions and
computers in homes are "not commodities" but "are use-values".  They are
*produced as commodities*, and therefore contain use-value.  In a
capitalist society, no cars and televisions and home computers are going to
be produced by capitalists as anything other than *commodities*!

This is a very good reason why Marx started 'Capital' with the analysis of
a single commodity - the fact that a single commodity is both use-value and
exchange-value sums up the whole central contradiction within capitalism -
that between need (expressed in use-value) and profit (expressed in
exchange value) and the fact that capital subordinates the production of
use-value (meeting human needs) to the production of exchange-value (making
profits).


>Concerning the consumer market once the exchange process
>has been completed the commodities in question cease to be commodities and
>are at >most simple use values.

And the point here is *that they are produced as commodities* and would not
be produced in a capitalist society at all if they were not produced as
commodities to be sold on the market for the realisation of the
surplus-value contained in them.  It is immaterial what is done with them
*after* they are sold - ie after the surplus-value has been relaised.  Once
the capitalist has sold you a pizza as a commodity, it is immaterial to him
or her whether you eat it, stick it up your arse or throw it away.  It is
consumed outside the cycle of capital.  The *value embodied in the pizza*
has, however, been realised and entered the cycle of capital, helping
produce further pizzas as commodities.



>In short the wealth of capitalist society does not present itself as an
>immense
>accumulation of commodities. That wealth presents itself as commodities;
>as use >values that are not commodities; as forms of capital that are not
>commodity forms. >The plain fact is that Marx in his opening statement was
>plain wrong.

The vast majority of use-values in capitalist societies are produced *as
commodities*, and it is *as commodities* that the wealth contained in them
is realised.  In fact, the trend is that more and more use-values are now
produced as commodities.  For instance, use-values often produced in the
domestic sphere through tasks like cooking, washing and so on, are
increasingly commodified through fast food takeaway joints, laundromats,
and so on.  If you buy something in a fast-food joint, or a high class
restaurant, it is just a use-value for you; but it is produced *as a
commodity*.

Add up all the wealth contained in what are produced and sold as
commodities - and what are in the hands of consumers use-values - and you
sure as hell have the *real wealth* that exists in capitalist society.

George, your attempts to 'correct' Marx only reveal how little you and your
'Communist Think Tank' understand about capital and capitalism.

Philip Ferguson