| This question <221-2|256-1> overall <242-2|243> Wolf: <98|309>. |
| Question 69: Define abstract labor and explain why Marx's theory can be summarized as: “Under capitalism, labor has social significance only as abstract labor.” (This is a combination of Questions 69 and 70). |
| [242-3] Wolf: To begin with, I feel that it is necessary to recognise the fact that to abstract is to simply choose a focus. In this sence, labor it self is an absrtaction. With in labor there are many different qualities allowing for different focuses. The qualities I wish to speak of are those which we have discussed => abstract and concrete labor. |
| Abstract labor is the expenditure of human brain, muscles, nerves, etc. In some respects, it is synonomyous with unskilled labor, labor that is monotnous, with the primary intention to produce a utliity that is demanded. It is some times viewed as the least rewarding and with the highest turnover rate compaired to concrete labor. |
| As I said before, abstract labor is intended for the production of a commodity that is demanded (by the market). Therefore, the value of products comes from abstract labor along with the fact that these products upon completion, due to abstract labor, become carriers of exchange value. |
| Now that abstract labor has been defined and many of it's postitive attributes have been recognised, it becomes necessary to answer/clear up the second part of the question. Ideally, in capitalism everything is determined in the market. Thus, giving rise for the use of abstrtact labor. In the above paragraphs, abstract labor is shown to be the reason why a commodity has value and carries an exchange value. But however, it still isn't clear why, according to Marx, labor has social significance only as abstract labor. The following should clear this up. |
| The process of production is like leadership. Before something is produced it must first be invented, realistic, efficient, and in demand. Then all other alternatives must be weighed and the degree of demand calculated (concrete labor). This is like leadership in that the leader must first come up with a vision of what could/should be, explain it to the masses (of people) and then motivate them to set it into action. This too could be refered to as concrete labor. But , next is where social significance comes into play. Once the commodity is decided upon, abstract labor takes over from there on out (to consumption). The same holds true for leadership because a dream/vision is only a dream with out action by many people to set it into action (abstract labor) to MAKE it a reality. On top of it all, concrete labor or the vision of a leader doesn't belong to just the concrete laborers or leaders because once it is set into action the vision/concrete labor belongs to the abstract laborers. In which the concrete laborers are now followers of abstract laborers, the leaders become followers and the followers became leaders. The is seen through out labor relations in our capitalist economy leading to the necessity of mediation and arbitration between capitalists and laborers. An example of such is seen with the dealings of unions with owners / heads of companies. It is the hard to tell who works for who or who is at who's mercy. And ultimately it is up to the abstract labor to get the job done. That is why labor has social significance ONLY as abstract labor. |
| Hans: The in-class exam was only one sentence, which was wrong. The resubmission shows that you apparently did some reading, but you did not understand Marx's argument. |
|
|
|||||