[2003fa:67]

This question <65|65> overall <66|68> Gog: <32|277-1>. graded A

Question 92: (a) Why is it necessary for the exchange of commodities that they contain qualitatively different kinds of useful labor?

(b) Can commodity production exist without division of labor?

(d) How does commodity production influence the division of labor?

[67] Gog: Division of Labor. I would like to add to what Deut said in [65].

(A). Times have changed since Marx; coats now are traded for coats. Let's take three examples: a basic coat a poor college student would buy, a fashionable coat a movie star would buy, and a weather proof gore-tex coat that an outdoorsman would buy. There is the added labor of the fashion designer and promoter in the case of the fashionable coat. There is the added labor of invention of gore-tex and heavy duty stitching in the case of the weather proof coat. The basic coat still has the price advantage. The market is more complex, with more divisions of labor, yet qualitative differences in labor still define commodities. The labor of a fashion designer define a fashionable coat, the labor of invention define a gore-tex coat.

(B) and (C). I do not feel that Deut fully differentiated between these two questions, even though he got the yes and no part correct. Central here is the definition of commodity, something produced for sale or exchange.

In (B) Deut asserts one man can divide his own labor. I would rather assert in his example a person who both weaves and tailors would be a coat maker, less specialized than a weaver or a tailor. The reason there is a division of labor is the coat maker sells the coats and then buys other goods, for example a house. The division of labor is between the coat maker and the house maker. If however, everyone produced goods on their own, to satisfy their own needs there would be no commodity. It would be like the coat maker trying to sell a coat and a house to the house maker who already owns a coat and a house.

In (C) Deut gives the same example of a person dividing their own labor, but this time keeps the coat. This prevents the coat from becoming a commodity. I would assert here again that it would require more than one individual for there to be a division of labor. Here, a tailor and a weaver could make coats together for each other. The coats are not being sold and are not being exchanged because they are essentially the same coats, and are therefore not commodities but still the products of the division of labor.

(D). I would be more critical of the effects of division of labor. Commodity production is indirectly wealth production through sale or exchange. In capitalistic society the goal is to maximize wealth and thereby commodity production. Through the division of labor commodity production has increased due to specialization. Specialization is maximized in order to maximize production thus further dividing labor. The labor structure is society, so by dividing labor to the maximum, society is being divided to the maximum. The fashion designer, the inventor of gore-tex, the weaver, the tailor and the farmer who grows the cotton or wool have been divided not just by their skills, but also ranked socially and economically.

Hans: Your second point, that divison of labor always involves two people, is much more important and less trivial than your first, that there are more than one kind of coats. It would have been better to leave out the first point altogether.