This question <60|66> overall <62|64> DrGuevara: <33|103>. graded A

Question 98: Carefully explain the meaning of the statement: “Under capitalism, labor has social significance only as abstract labor.”

[63] DrGuevara: In response to Eastwood, 98.   I commend Eastwood on his answer to question 98, however, I feel that he or she failed to address an important question in explaining Marx's statement: why does labor have social significance only as abstract labor under capitalism? His or her answer, which stated that everyone in society is performing abstract labor hence you can relate that to a more social aspect of capitalism, falls short of being a concrete, solid answer. This is because in a feudal society, or slavery everyone is performing abstract labor. Yes, even the slave master or the feudal lord must keep a vigilant eye over his laborers, thus performing abstract labor.

So, what makes capitalism so special that labor has its only significance as abstract labor under it? The answer can be determined by addressing the other form of labor, concrete labor. What is concrete labor? More importantly why didn't Marx say, “Under capitalism, labor has social significance only as concrete labor?” What makes abstract labor so significant under capitalism? The answer is because capitalism pays more attention to abstract labor than to concrete labor. In clarification, concrete labor is the skill used in producing something. Capitalism does not favor highly the laborer that takes his time in meticulously making a product, lets say a bolt for instance. In other words, capitalism pays no attention to the worker who puts a lot of concrete labor into making that bolt. Capitalism only gives social significance to the fact that a laborer can produce bolts at an average speed in comparison to his other workers. In other words, abstract labor has social significance in capitalism because it is abstract labor that is valued. The energy in which my body can give off to produce something, to work in other words is valued in capitalism. This explains why labor has social significance only as abstract labor in capitalism.

Hans: Excellent answer. I apologize for not say anything about it in my [66]; I had simply overlooked it when I wrote [66].

	Students enrolled for Econ 5080 in 2009fa are invited to give feedback to the above message Pseudonym:      UofU ID:   Text: