| This question <124|117> overall <114|116> Gza: <85|612>. graded A |
| Question 86: 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 in section 1.1.d? |
| [115] Gza: Marx did not make “additional assumptions” to resolve the problem of the “lazy worker”. In section “1.1 d”, Marx provides two alternatives for analyzing the value of labor in which he addresses the problem of the “lazy worker.” The first analysis does not solve the problem of the “lazy worker” while his second analysis does. |
| Marx first says in 129:1 “a useful article has commodity value only because human labor in the abstract is objectified or materialized in it.” This means that labor is treated just like articles in the market place in that articles can be exchanged for other goods because articles have value in the sense that they use up resources from society. Labor, like articles also uses up society's supply of abstract labor. Marx suggests that the amount of goods that one can get in exchange for an article is dependent upon the amount of labor that went into the production of the article, or “how much labor was congealed in it” (Hans). The value of the article is in the “total” labor that went into its production. |
| Marx directly poses the problem of the “lazy worker” from the above analysis by stating that “it might seem that the value of a commodity is determined by the amount of labor spent in its production, the more lazy and inept the laborer, the more valuable his commodity” (Marx 129). |
| From this abstract analysis, Marx shifts into the concept of “average labor” as a way to get out of the “lazy worker” dilemma. He suggests that “the individual commodity counts here generally as an average of its kind” meaning that labor time and the commodity's use-value are to be looked at on the average. The majority of articles will contain the socially necessary labor time and as long as use-values are equal, the market will treat various articles the same. The solution to the “lazy worker” is that he will have to “compete” with “average” workers producing identical articles, so he therefore cannot demand more for his output simply because it took him longer. |
| The only “assumption” that Marx seems to make is that the “average” is actual and majorital. Marx is correct in assuming that regardless of the timeliness of the “work force”, there is always going to be an average time in which products are made, even if it is a slow (on average). It does not really matter at this point if the whole work force is lazy because the value of an article is always going to be sold at the same price and workers will have to use the average as the standard, no matter how slow it is. The average is a reflection of the laborers as a whole. |
| Where there can be a problem in Marx's analysis is if he assumes that the majority of laborers are average. If the majority are not average and most could objectively be considered “slow” and it is an elite few that make the “average” high, then there is going to be a problem with exchanges. However, I do not think that Marx is using the term “average” literally. Instead I think he is using it to describe what “most” laborers are like and how fast they work and not the mathematical operation. I think I am justified in interpreting Marx's use of the term “average” to refer to the majority because he is drawing his conclusions based on his analysis of total labor-power being “represented in the values of the commodities produced by society,” where society is mediated through the concept of what is “socially necessary.” This eludes to Marx to take into consideration the context of the dilemma and not reduce the standard in mathematical terms. If Marx is using the average to describe the majority and “social necessity” then he makes no unnecessary assumptions regarding the “lazy worker” dilemma. |
| The only question at this point in Marx's argument would be what happens to the “lazy worker”? Within section “1.1 d” there is no explicit consequence. It can be assumed that the lazy worker stops being lazy because he is held to the average standard. However, if he continues to be lazy, I would assume he/she starves. If the whole labor market becomes lazy then everyone hurts, even if they meet their average standard. This is still not a desirable outcome. These problems are not addressed, but logically, I do not think Marx needs to address them within this section. |
| Hans: About your second paragraph: Marx has not yet made the assumption that labor is a commodity. He will introduce this in chapter Six. Even in society in which labor itself is not a commodity (i.e., one cannot hire wage workers or it is very unusual to do so), labor still determines the values of the goods traded. |
| You are right, in a wage-labor situation the slow worker will get fired. In a situation where the slow worker sells his or her own product, he or she will have to work longer than others to produce an equivalent for the things he or she needs. |
| I don't think “eludes” is the word you meant. |
|
|
|||||