| This question <95|108> overall <103|106> Hans: <103|121>. |
| Question 113: Coat and linen are qualitatively different use-values. Are they exchanged because their use-values are different, or because the labors in them are different? |
| [105] Hans: Why did you do that? Questions inquiring about causality are usually a joke. There are many things that could be considered me causing to exchange a coat for linen. Perhaps the coat does not fit me, perhaps I am a tailor, perhaps I drank too much. Everything is overdetermined, and the best one can do is try to sort out the different influences coming from the different directions. |
| The difference in use-values is a necessary condition for individuals having the motivation to exchange. This has relevance for the immediate practical act. |
| The difference in labors has deeper significance. Because of these differences it is beneficial for society to set up a division of labor, so that linen is produced by one person, and coat by another. But the difference in labors alone cannot explain why the mediation between these two labor processes is done by the market. For this you need a third element not mentioned in the question, namely, individuals who recognize each other as private owners having the right to transfer ownership of things by exchange. If you live in a closely-knit community, in which everything is considered property of the community, then it is not possible to make exchanges. For exchanges, you need a community of private individuals who have a certain degree of independence and isolation. |
| In a market framework, people do not have to be told that they should produce in a division of labor. Not only society as a whole benefits from the greater productivity, but individuals reap some of the benefits. If you specialize in one thing and can produce it well and efficiently, you will be rewarded by the market. Both answers mention these advantages of specialization for the individual producer. But they should not forget that division of labor also has benefits for society as a whole. It brings higher productivity for everyone, not only for the specialized producers. |
| Marx was critical of division of labor. Especially vicious is the division between mental and manual labor. Modern technology holds the promise that we all become more generalists rather than specialists. Every job should be a balanced combination between manual and mental labor, between routine tasks and interesting challenges. But before this is possible, exploitation has to be removed from the labor process. |
|
|
|||||