Question 1 What did Marx mean with his formu - University of Utah

U of Utah Econ 5080 2005fa 47
Next Message by McDugall is [265].
[145] Thugtorious: (graded A) Character Flaw and McDugall’s Answer. There has
already been a little discussion of this, but I think that McDugall’s response is interesting.
He/she says that we must all do our part to keep the system at somewhat of a homeostasis
or balance, and that Marx would view a lazy worker as having a character flaw of laziness.
However, within the capitalistic mode of production, Marx sees that there is no equality
whatsoever. That is one of the largest contradictions, if not the largest contradiction of our
day: laborers do all of the work, but do not own the means of production or receive the
worth of what they create. Somebody else, either by a ruthless competitive scheme or divine
luck of birth, owns the means of production and reaps the benefits of profit merely from
ownership. There is no equality.
Now, as for laziness, I said it before: it is a flaw of the system itself. A human’s natural
propensity is to be creative and industrious. However, capitalism takes away any incentive to
produce or be creative. The laborers are torn away from the products they create. I don’t want
to get too deep into alienation, but the products and production itself should help humans
become better people and to develop as a race. Unfortunately, in capitalism, the focus is not
on the laborer, or even the products that they create, but on the money accumulated by the
capitalists.
Next Message by Thugtorious is [155].
[147] Jerm: In an exploitive system it is possible for a worker to be exploited whether
or not he knows it. Exploitation works much better if those who are being exploited are not
aware that they are being exploited. If a person is aware that they are being exploited, it is
much easier for them to not work as hard and to become lazy, in which case, the laziness
would be a character flaw of the employer. In a capitalist system, the whole economy is
based on exploitation. Therefore, it cannot be blamed on an individual or a single company.
The capitalist society would not function without exploitation because the greedy capitalist
must exploit others in order to increase his production and profit.
It is a character flaw of the employee to be lazy if the person knows they are being
exploited. In a capitalist system, however, it is not a character flaw to be lazy because, even
if we are exploited, we still participate in the system and help to make it function.
Hans: The question whether the employee knows that he or she is exploited is certainly relevant here, and you are
the only one who has pointed this out. You seem to have excellent thoughts, but I implore you to explain yourself
better. What you are saying is so deep and unusual that your audience otherwise just won’t get it.
Message [147] referenced by [1510]. Next Message by Jerm is [247].
[186] TriPod: I don’t think it is a character flaw to be lazy in an exploitive system. Most
people are hired and paid a wage no matter what their production is. If you allow yourself
to be exploited and work above and beyond the call of duty it is unlikely that you will be
given a raise so why would you work harder. In our company we have people who perform
and people who don’t perform but no matter what their level of production we still get paid
the same. I go to work with the understanding that no matter what my level of production
is I will still get paid the same, again why work harder. If I work harder, then I will allow
myself to be exploited because no matter what my level of production, I am not getting paid
more. I think it is the system that is flawed. We can fix the system by paying employees
what they deserve based on production. It is not a character flaw because employees like I
48 2005fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
are just participating in the system that is set up rather than allowing the system to exploit
us.
Hans: Your answer is very similar to ADHH’s [99]. This hurt your grade, because I only give credit for things
which were not already said.
Message [186] referenced by [230]. Next Message by TriPod is [215].
[230] COMMI: I have to disagree with what Tripod said in [186] about laziness in an
exploitive system. He says that if you increase your marginal product of labor you will not
receive an increase in pay. I have experienced the opposite at my job. Over the last 3 years
at my job I have been promoted three times and nearly doubled my salary. I know this is
a consequence of the hard work that I have done. If I would have had the attitude of doing
just enough to get by I would be in the same position I was three years ago and I would be
making the same amount of money. I can’t see how being lazy could be a positive attribute
to a person’s character. Laziness has and always will be a character flaw. By being lazy you
exploit yourself.
Next Message by COMMI is [454].
[845] Bboarder: After re-reading the installments I believe that it is the system that is
flawed more than a specific individual. If two people are hired at the same wage and to do
the same thing, they will be paid the same no matter what their production is. Because this
situation exists it does not promote the laborer to excel in his position. Therefore natural
tendency causes him or her to do the least amount of work possible to get by. The reason the
laborer does this is as follows in quotes “Since the product of production is stripped away
from the laborer, they are unable to experience the true satisfaction and realization of what
they created. From this, the laborer does not find any more joy in production; they see the
commodities produced and the process itself as ‘alien’ to them.” The alienation from this
process is more of a problem of the exploited system than it is a character flaw. Therefore
I believe it is the system that is flawed more than it is an individual. The biggest problem
would be trying to change this exploitation of laborers. You stated in [2004fa:30] “We all
have the responsibility to get rid of the system. We cannot just wait for the capitalist to
become less greedy.” How do we get rid of the system is a difficult question that probably
can’t be answered within this question.
Next Message by Bboarder is [850].
[887] Will: graded A– It is not a character flaw in an exploitive system to be lazy because
if the value of labor is determined by the amount of labor spent in the production of a commodity,
the more lazy and slow a laborer may be, the more the commodity he is producing
will be worth. This is because of the more time it took in the production of that commodity.
Hans: This is only true if all workers are slow at the same time. This combination of character flaws is called class
struggle. You seem to have recognized this fact in class, when you wrote:
No, it is not because if a laborer is lazy in an exploitive system it should be recognized that he
is not producing up to the average production of a worker and therefore should lose his job.
This in effect should be recognized by the producers and therefore action should be taken in
order to rid the system of inefficient workers.
Both answers are a good attempt to look at the issue scientifically.
Next Message by Will is [889].
[897] Tomek: According to Marx’s findings, workers’ commodities can be competitive
only in case he spends no more than the socially necessary labor-time on producing them.
For to stay competitive, a worker’s labor has to be at least as effective, as every other average