<blockquote>
  <p>Quantities of products are not increased by transportation. Nor, with
  a few exceptions, is the possible alteration of their natural
  qualities, brought about by transportation, an intentional useful
  effect; it is rather an unavoidable evil. But the use-value of things
  is materialised only in their consumption, and their consumption may
  necessitate a change of location of these things, hence may require an
  additional process of production, in the transport industry. The
  productive capital invested in this industry imparts value to the
  transported products, partly by transferring value from the means of
  transportation, partly by adding value through the labour performed in
  transport. This last-named increment of value consists, as it does in
  all capitalist production, of a replacement of wages and of
  surplus-value.  </p>
</blockquote>

<p>Source: <a href="https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1885-c2/ch06.htm" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Capital Volume II, Chapter 6: The Costs of Circulation, 
I. Genuine Costs of Circulation, III. Costs of Transportation</a></p>

<p>My understanding of Marx's argument is the following: Transportation does not alter the quantity/quality of products significantly. But, products need to have a use-value in order to also have an exchange value. Thus, an orange for example produced in Spain has an exchange value in UK, only if it arrives in UK, so that it can be bought and consumed. So, transportation adds value to the products, and this is done (as with all products) partly from the labor value (transportation workers) and partly from the means of production (means of transportation: airplanes, ships, cars, trucks...).  </p>

<p>Since transportation adds value to the product, and since price is a mirror of value according to Marx, then we can say that transportation tends to increase the price of the product (which is a logical assumption on average).   </p>

<p>Regarding distance, I am not sure if that is explicitly mentioned, but again we can deduce from the previous that: bigger distance --> more transportation needed (given constant technological advancement in a period) --> more transportation labor needed + more transportation means of production --> more added value --> tendency for bigger price.  </p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-12-18T07:48:19.023Z
2017-12-18T07:48:19.023Z
koita_pisw_sou
<p>A friend mentioned that in Marxism, the distance a good was transported was used to determine the price of said good.</p>

<p>I can't find anything on the Internet to support this claim, although I might be misremembering his statement.</p>

<p>Can anyone think to what he was referring?</p>

<pricing><marxism>
Distance transported used to price goods in Marxism
52d6c6af
# Distance transported used to price goods in Marxism

(Asked by: username_0 on 2017-12-15)

A friend mentioned that in Marxism, the distance a good was transported was used to determine the price of said good.

I can't find anything on the Internet to support this claim, although I might be misremembering his statement.

Can anyone think to what he was referring?

**Tags:** pricing, marxism

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_1 on 2017-12-18. Score: 4 | Accepted answer

> Quantities of products are not increased by transportation. Nor, with
> a few exceptions, is the possible alteration of their natural
> qualities, brought about by transportation, an intentional useful
> effect; it is rather an unavoidable evil. But the use-value of things
> is materialised only in their consumption, and their consumption may
> necessitate a change of location of these things, hence may require an
> additional process of production, in the transport industry. The
> productive capital invested in this industry imparts value to the
> transported products, partly by transferring value from the means of
> transportation, partly by adding value through the labour performed in
> transport. This last-named increment of value consists, as it does in
> all capitalist production, of a replacement of wages and of
> surplus-value.

Source: [Capital Volume II, Chapter 6: The Costs of Circulation,
I. Genuine Costs of Circulation, III. Costs of Transportation](https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1885-c2/ch06.htm)

My understanding of Marx's argument is the following: Transportation does not alter the quantity/quality of products significantly. But, products need to have a use-value in order to also have an exchange value. Thus, an orange for example produced in Spain has an exchange value in UK, only if it arrives in UK, so that it can be bought and consumed. So, transportation adds value to the products, and this is done (as with all products) partly from the labor value (transportation workers) and partly from the means of production (means of transportation: airplanes, ships, cars, trucks...).

Since transportation adds value to the product, and since price is a mirror of value according to Marx, then we can say that transportation tends to increase the price of the product (which is a logical assumption on average).

Regarding distance, I am not sure if that is explicitly mentioned, but again we can deduce from the previous that: bigger distance --> more transportation needed (given constant technological advancement in a period) --> more transportation labor needed + more transportation means of production --> more added value --> tendency for bigger price.


---

