When discussing the relationship between the base and the superstructure, Williams points to Marx' use of the piano as an analogy. The man who makes the piano is a productive worker, but does this title relate to the piano distributor as well? Williams says yes, as the distributor contributes to the overall surplus value of the piano. The productivity of creation ends, however, with the piano-player. He is not a productive worker, but he who is able to benefit from the creation of the commodity. In its simplest form: "the piano-maker is the base, and the piano-player, the superstructure." (35)
Adding an additional layer to this process is the labor-power itself, as a commodity. Marx defines labor-power, or the capacity for labor, as "the aggregate of those mental and physical capabilities existing in a human being, which he exercises whenever he produces a use-value of any description." (Capital, Vol. 1, Ch. 6) If the use-value is a question of how much utility one gets from a certain commodity, how does this apply to the "artistic" commodities of the superstructure? There is no great life utility from a piano, but it will have exchange-use, considering its monetary worth on the market. Does labor power only exist when concerning commodities with use-value or does it extend to the luxuries of the superstructure? Will the labor-power of a blacksmith be worth more than that of the piano maker?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteyeah this was one of those moments when i get a bit annoyed with marx, but maybe because i'm not understanding correctly. does he mean that music itself has no value? or is he critical that in a capitalist society, music is not seen as valuable because you can't slap a sticker price on it?
ReplyDeleteof course, if you go to a concert, you CAN slap a sticker price on it. i don't know marx, i don't know.