| This question <326|128> overall <74|76> Darci: <74|99>. |
| Question 44: Under capitalism, the individual circumstances under which a commodity is produced are not socially recognized in the value of the commodity. Give arguments for and against adopting such a principle (that only results are counted, not the effort) in a planned economy. |
| [75] Darci: “Wealth” meaning access to large quantities of commodities and exchange potential has come about as a result of several things. Two of these things is specialization in production and technological advancement. These two elements tend to de-skill a laborer, but they also allow the laborer to produce large quantities of commodities. |
| Hans: The de-skilling is not a necessary consequence of advancing technology. It is really a quite paradoxical result that the higher the technology the dumber the producer. Technology can move in many directions, and even modern mainstream growth theory recognizes that technology is “endogenous.” (Korkut Erturk on our faculty is knowledgeable about this.) Marx argues very strongly that the kind of technology seen here in capitalism is very much influenced by the fact that production is at the same time exploitation, that the worker has to be coerced and controlled -- of course not too openly, this would invite troubles, but in many subtle automatic ways. |
| [75] Darci: The more commodities a society produces --the greater the wealth. The use values are established by that society and as a whole it becomes wealthier. An example of this would be the personal computer. With the technological advances in the industry and the “assembly line” production of labor came the opportunity for “the average” person to own a personal computer because the exchange value was low enough to make it affordable. If one observes the amount of labor required to produce this piece of equipment, it has declined tremendously over the last twenty years and a relatively unskilled person can put one together, illustrating how this process can work to make labor “equal.” The amount a worker produces is more equal and individual effort obscured by the process. Those of us who benefit from this can be grateful that the human labor costs are low so we can exchange less of our money for more commodity. |
| Hans: Am I right to assume that your argument that “human labor cost are low” not only refers to increases in productivity, which means that less labor is required to produce comparable use values, but also to the low wages of the unskilled workers who perform this technologically advanced labor? Wage costs should not be considered costs, think about it! |
| [75] Darci: On the “down” side, labor that has evolved into a “mass” tend to take little pride in his work (non one knows or cares who produced the product) and there is little accountability of the quality of the product. This attitude tends to lead to wastefulness in a society because labor is not recognized in the value of the commodity. A good example is socks. A hundred years ago socks were knitted by hand and hours were spent producing the product. If a sock got a hole in it, it was repaired and worn for a long time. Today, if your sock gets a hole in it, it is thrown away along with its mate and replaced by a new pair--because if you have ever tried to repair a modern sock you know that it is wasted effort. |
| Hans: That is why I always buy identical socks by the dozens -- then at least I can keep the “mates,” and I don't waste my time sorting socks after the laundry is done. You are not going to convince me that the olden days were better when women were seen knitting and repairing socks in every free minute. |
| To get serious again, there are many issues involved in these everyday examples. The relationships between people and their clothes under capitalism is certainly worth investigating. All this is related with “commodity fetishism” and will be the reading assignment next week. I would try to argue along the following lines: interpersonal relations are so impoverished due to the relentless competition we all are forced into, that people hunger for substitutes. Making a good first impression with your clothes since relationships are not going to last long anyway, looking “wealthy” even if you aren't, emulating the blow-dried types you see on TV commercials, all this forced people to prefer new cheap polyester suits to old worn-out but oh so comfortable cotton or wool gear. |
| [75] Darci: This makes me believe that we exchange quality for quantity when we remove socially recognized value from the commodity. Is it worth the tradeoff? Yes, if you need a personal computer with a modem to take class. |
| Hans: Now you are opening up a new but very important aspect of technological progress. Increases in technology not only provide the same goods at lower prices, but new goods become available which allow completely new experiences. This is what I am trying to do with this class. Instead of processing and controlling more and more students with a sophisticated assembly line methods (some of my colleagues in technologically enhanced teaching have their students write papers which nobody ever reads but which are graded by a computer), I am trying to create completely new experiences and forms of interaction. |
| [75] Darci: (datestring)Sun, 22 Jan 95 21:39:37 MST(/datestring) I am not trying to argue that was is the reason for low costs but that less man hour labor is required for the same level of production and now to produce the same number of commodities it is not necessary to have as many employees. It is not my intention to imply that wage be considered a cost but that the type of labor per unit does not require as great a personal investment. Also, I don't believe the “good old days” are better. I just used the socks example to illustrate that personal investment in performance of tasks seems not to be as likely in view of technological advances -- believe me, I enjoy my blow dryer, but I don't want to sell “myself” cheap, I also value meaningful interpersonal relationships and do try to “work” at what I believe to be my personal best. This is not a soap box reflection but merely an observation and I have seen that compensation does not reflect individual labor in the work force I am most familiar. |
| Hans: Thank you for your reply. |
|
|
|||||