| This question <291-2|192> overall <26|28> Jeepers: <548|124>. graded A |
| Question 82: Imagine you were studying Marxism together with a friend, and the friend said to you: Doesn't the labor theory of value imply that, the more lazy and inept the laborer, the more valuable his commodity would be? How would you answer your friend? |
| [27] Jeepers: Lazy Implications. I would argue that the labor theory of value does not state that the lazy or inept worker produces a more valuable commodity simply because it takes them more time than the “average”. I would argue that Marx did not intend for the commodity produced by laziness to be of more value than the same commodity produced more efficiently. |
| I would provide the following example: We have two diamond hunters. One looks far and wide for a diamond. His search takes him deep into unchartered territories, and finally, days later he cultivates a large 15 ct. diamond. His friend (diamond hunter no. 2) walks out his back door and looks at the ground and thinks, “Hmmm, I wonder if there are any diamonds in my backyard.” He begins to dig and a few minutes later, he also cultivates a large 15 ct. diamond. Although the first diamond hunter clearly (AND NOT LAZILY!!!) took a longer time to find his diamond than the second diamond hunter, his diamond is not of more value than the second. |
| I would argue that the “lazy” or “inept” laborer's commodity would not be more valuable than the same commodity that an average or above average laborer produced. If the commodities are identical, the consumer is not going to know the difference between the commodity that the lazy worker produced and the commodity that the average worker produced. |
|
|
|||||