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

U of Utah Econ 5080 2005fa 59
should be grateful for any input. Class participants may be hesitant to give such input because
they do not want to depress the grades of their peers. Therefore I am always waiting a
little before I give you your grades. If someone corrects you, and then you respond by either
acknowledging your error or explaining yourself better, then I will take your response into
consideration when giving you your grade.
Next Message by Hans is [582].
[569] Iblindone: Re: Socially necessary labor-time. Now that I read my response I
should have worded it a little different. In my attempt to make it simple and short I made
an error. What I was trying to say was that the production method of hand woven linen
wouldn’t be as productive as machine woven linen and would hence forth trade at a lesser
value (not lesser than machine but as a homogenous commodity) because the average labor
time to produce linen would decrease as a result of the new technology. When I was saying
lesser value I wasn’t referring to hand vs. machine linen. I was referring it to the commodity
as a whole in reference to the market. Obviously linen is linen and would be traded at the
same exchange value whether it is machine or hand woven. I believe this is what Marx was
saying in Capital. If not please correct me.
Next Message by Iblindone is [762].
Question 86 is 52 in 1997ut, 68 in 1999SP, and 99 in 2008fa:
Question 86 Did Marx introduce additional assumptions in order to resolve the paradox
of the lazy worker, or does his solution follow from assumptions made or results derived in
section 1.1.d?
[115] Gza: graded A Marx did not make “additional assumptions” to resolve the problem
of the “lazy worker”. In section “1.1 d”, Marx provides two alternatives for analyzing the
value of labor in which he addresses the problem of the “lazy worker.” The first analysis
does not solve the problem of the “lazy worker” while his second analysis does.
Marx first says in 129:1 “a useful article has commodity value only because human labor
in the abstract is objectified or materialized in it.” This means that labor is treated just like
articles in the market place in that articles can be exchanged for other goods because articles
have value in the sense that they use up resources from society. Labor, like articles also
uses up society’s supply of abstract labor. Marx suggests that the amount of goods that one
can get in exchange for an article is dependent upon the amount of labor that went into the
production of the article, or “how much labor was congealed in it” (Hans). The value of the
article is in the “total” labor that went into its production.
Marx directly poses the problem of the “lazy worker” from the above analysis by stating
that “it might seem that the value of a commodity is determined by the amount of labor spent
in its production, the more lazy and inept the laborer, the more valuable his commodity”
(Marx 129).
From this abstract analysis, Marx shifts into the concept of “average labor” as a way to
get out of the “lazy worker” dilemma. He suggests that “the individual commodity counts
here generally as an average of its kind” meaning that labor time and the commodity’s usevalue
are to be looked at on the average. The majority of articles will contain the socially
necessary labor time and as long as use-values are equal, the market will treat various articles
60 2005fa Econ 5080 U of Utah
the same. The solution to the “lazy worker” is that he will have to “compete” with “average”
workers producing identical articles, so he therefore cannot demand more for his output
simply because it took him longer.
The only “assumption” that Marx seems to make is that the “average” is actual and majorital.
Marx is correct in assuming that regardless of the timeliness of the “work force”,
there is always going to be an average time in which products are made, even if it is a slow
(on average). It does not really matter at this point if the whole work force is lazy because
the value of an article is always going to be sold at the same price and workers will have to
use the average as the standard, no matter how slow it is. The average is a reflection of the
laborers as a whole.
Where there can be a problem in Marx’s analysis is if he assumes that the majority of laborers
are average. If the majority are not average and most could objectively be considered
“slow” and it is an elite few that make the “average” high, then there is going to be a problem
with exchanges. However, I do not think that Marx is using the term “average” literally.
Instead I think he is using it to describe what “most” laborers are like and how fast they work
and not the mathematical operation. I think I am justified in interpreting Marx’s use of the
term “average” to refer to the majority because he is drawing his conclusions based on his
analysis of total labor-power being “represented in the values of the commodities produced
by society,” where society is mediated through the concept of what is “socially necessary.”
This eludes to Marx to take into consideration the context of the dilemma and not reduce the
standard in mathematical terms. If Marx is using the average to describe the majority and
“social necessity” then he makes no unnecessary assumptions regarding the “lazy worker”
dilemma.
The only question at this point in Marx’s argument would be what happens to the “lazy
worker”? Within section “1.1 d” there is no explicit consequence. It can be assumed that
the lazy worker stops being lazy because he is held to the average standard. However, if he
continues to be lazy, I would assume he/she starves. If the whole labor market becomes lazy
then everyone hurts, even if they meet their average standard. This is still not a desirable
outcome. These problems are not addressed, but logically, I do not think Marx needs to
address them within this section.
Hans: About your second paragraph: Marx has not yet made the assumption that labor is a commodity. He will
introduce this in chapter Six. Even in society in which labor itself is not a commodity (i.e., one cannot hire wage
workers or it is very unusual to do so), labor still determines the values of the goods traded.
You are right, in a wage-labor situation the slow worker will get fired. In a situation where the slow worker sells
his or her own product, he or she will have to work longer than others to produce an equivalent for the things he or
she needs.
I don’t think “eludes” is the word you meant.
Next Message by Gza is [267].
[117] Thugtorious: (graded A) Can every laborer be lazy . . . ? At the bottom of Gza’s
response and at some point in the middle, he/she says that if the labor market as a whole
becomes lazy an undesirable outcome would occur. However, my question is can the whole
labor market be “lazy”? Not in the sense of the word “lazy” as in “is it physically, mentally,
emotionally, etc. possible?” But, more in the sense of logically plausible meaning: if more
people work at a slower pace in production than do not, should not the slower pace become