Good Critical Thinking On The Commodities And The Gift: An Article Comparison

Karl Marx writes extensively about idea of capitalism and what it has meant for the plethora of people who have not benefited from the system. During Marx’s time, the western world was, by and large, capitalistic; the systems were unrestrained and had no checks and balances in place to ensure that the actors in the system were acting morally (Tucker). Essentially, the capitalistic system was a free for all, and actors in the system were free to oppress people as they saw fit to make a profit (Tucker). It was this inequality that Marx tried to address in Capital,-- more specifically, in “The Commodities”--by setting forth a new system of economy and government that focused heavily on the development of equality within this new system (Marx and Engels). The idea of value is one that Marx is very concerned with, and he has developed a number of different ways of thinking about the meaning of value in a modern society. Marx has developed a theory that describes things not by their use value, but by their potential in the future. To Marx, there is a certain mysticism to commodities, and the utilitarian attitude towards the exchange of commodities does not properly reflect the value-relation of the many commodities available to humanity.
Marx looks closely at the current economic systems that are in place, and determines that there are problems with the way value is considered. In “The Commodities,” Marx suggests that there is value in potential—that a piece of wood, for instance, has the potential to be so much more than just a piece of wood (Marx and Engels). This is certainly true, but in practical consideration, it is very difficult to consider the future potential for every exchange made within a society (Marx and Engels). When exchanges are made, Marx suggests, there is more than just an object being exchanged; there is future potential for that object being exchanged, as well (Marx and Engles).
In the practical sense, society understands that objects have future value and future potential; this is why certain objects have intrinsic value within society at large. However, Marx goes so far to suggest that “ articles of utility become commodities, only because they are the products of the labor of private individuals the sum total of all the labor forms the aggregate labor of society” (Marx and Engels). Thus, to Marx, everyone should benefit from the labor of private individuals, because everyone is part of society and thus shares relationships with everyone else. Mauss, in the landmark text The Gift, developed a theory of human interaction that is based on the idea of reciprocal gift-giving and the sharing of commodities, noting that this was common practice throughout a wide variety of different cultures.
Mauss looks at a number of cultures, including a number of indigenous cultures, and developed a theory based on the exchange and barter systems that he saw at work in these more primitive societies (Mauss and Evans-Pritchard). He used these societies and their more basic economic system to develop a theory about the human practices of exchange and barter (Mauss and Evans-Pritchard). To Mauss, human relationships—and mutual trust—is built upon the idea of reciprocal gift giving (Mauss and Evans-Pritchard). When individuals in these societies give gifts to each other, it is understood that the action will be reciprocated; this is something that is recognized even today in society (Mauss and Evans-Pritchard). However, he also notes that this phenomenon also occurs between groups (Mauss and Evans-Pritchard). This is an important distinction that takes away from Marx’s theory that human culture would benefit from a pooling of resources and commodities; when resources are pooled, the individual connections that are built from the sharing and reciprocal gift giving are lost.
However, despite certain disparate ideas, Mauss and Marx share a philosophical view of the sharing of commodities; Mauss’ theory of reciprocity does lend credence to the idea that the utilitarianism of western culture is not natural or beneficial to the masses. To Mauss, the existence of religious gift giving is the ultimate example of collective gift giving. Mauss and Evans-Pritchard write, “We can see the nature of a bond created by the transfer of a possession this bond created by things is in fact a bond between persons, since the thing itself is a person or pertains to a person. Hence it follows that to give something is to give part of oneself” (Mauss and Evans-Pritchard). When disparate members of a community all belong to each other, this changes the relationship between the individuals within the community; they become interlinked based on the obligation to both give gifts and receive them as well (Mauss and Evans-Pritchard). Marx writes in a similar vein, noting that there are many connections made when individuals within a singular community pool the outcome of all of their labor as a community. Their labor exists for all the members of the community, and Marx suggests that therefore, all the commodities that are created by that community become communal property of the group (Marx and Engels).
Mauss suggests that human beings can be bound together through the idea of mutual sacrifice, and that religion is a significant manifestation of this bond. When men sacrifice to the gods and to each other, they are participating in a type of community bonding experience that is incredibly significant (Mauss and Evans-Pritchard). These rituals can be found all over the world, in a wide array of different communities with different religious traditions; they are even found to a certain extent in the western world and different communities within the Christian tradition. These are traditions that link back to an older time, before capitalism and the current economic climate was developed (Mauss and Evans-Pritchard). Marx’s assertion that the current state of affairs in the western world insofar as the way that individuals regard commodities is a fair assessment of the historical way in which commodities and commodity exchange was viewed by communities and cultures (Mauss and Evans-Pritchard).
Marx’s underlying thesis—that all things of value have potential, and that commodities have use value and future value—is one that is quite compelling. Although Marx does not demonstrate conclusively that the utilitarian, western view of commodity exchange is incapable of recognizing future value, the mystical aspects of commodity exchange and communal sharing are ideas that are anthropologically sound, and certainly worth examining further. The conclusions reached may be impractical, but understanding the intrinsic value of things is something that is important to the success of a community as a whole.

References

Marx, Karl, and Friedrich Engels. Capital. New York: International Publishers, 1967. Print.
Mauss, Marcel, and E. E Evans-Pritchard. The Gift. New York: Norton, 1967. Print.
Tucker, Robert C. Philosophy And Myth In Karl Marx. Cambridge [England]: University Press, 1961. Print.