| This question <80|45> overall <88|90> Hans: <87|90>. |
| Exam Question 70: What is abstract human labor? I want you to say what it is, not what its significance is in commodity-producing society! These are two different questions. |
| [89] Hans: Is abstract labor “concrete”? We have received 3 answers, which I will comment on in turn. |
| Positive's answer [45] starts out with several wrong statements: |
| Abstract human labor is concrete and specific work by an individual. It can be for tailoring and it can be for larger production. |
| No. Marx distinguishes abstract human labor and concrete useful labor. They are two opposite aspects of the same labor process. |
| The products which are being made from “abstract human labor” will always have a given value. |
| This is the significance of abstract labor in commodity-poducing society, something which the Question asked you not to talk about here. |
| This value is determined by the costs of production. |
| The costs of production are the values of the inputs. Defining values of the outputs by values of the inputs is circular. At the end, Positive is also saying something right: |
| There is no difference between one compared to another, all labors are the same. It is not a matter of who is doing the labor, it is depended upon how it is done, which again will effect how long it will take to make that specific product. |
| Homer's [56] is an excellent answer. I have nothing to add to it. |
| Peace's [80] tries to see Marx's analysis through Bhaskarian lenses. I am not quite convinced and have one question here: generative mechanisms are “simply the ways of acting of things” (RTS2, 51). Which thing is acting in the generative mechanism which Peace identifies here with abstract human labor? |
|
|
|||||