| This question <161-2|23> overall <15|19> Hawken: <68|68>. |
| Question 68: 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 earlier? |
| [18] Hawken: Paradox of lazy workers In my opinion, Marx did not have to introduce additional assumptions in order to resolve the paradox of the lazy worker. |
| The paradox of the lazy worker was resolved by the fact that Marx reffered to “socially necessary labor time”. This aspect was also the main point in this regard. At the same i would like to state that it is of some importance to keep in mind that according to Marx, the value of a commodity is that in which determines the price of the commodity. |
| Further, the assumption being made was that the value of a commodity/good was related to the amount of labor time socially necessary for its production. The point here was that the commodity made by the lazy worker was not worth more(had a greater value) than a commodity produced by an average worker only because the lazy worker spent more time making his/her product. |
| In addition, the lazy worker was less efficient in the production process compared to the average worker. The lazy worker where therefore creating less value per hour than was “socially necessary” |
| Hans: Although your first paragraph says that Marx did not introduce additional assumptions, you are saying in the third paragraph that the rule “magnitude of value is determined by socially necessary labor time” was indeed an additional assumption. My claim is that this rule is not a new assumption but can be derived from what Marx says about value in Section 1.1.2. |
|
|
|||||