| This question <60|339> overall <70|73> Dwightschrute: <28|427>. |
| Question 93: 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? |
| [71] Dwightschrute: I would disagree with my friend over whether the value of a certain commodity would increase because of the incompetence or low skill of the laborer who spends abstract labor in the creation of the commodity. |
| The Labor theory of value is that the amount of labor spent in production of the commodity is the only commonality between differing commodities. Marx offers the theory of the lazy worker and that his/her commodity would have a higher value because more time is required in its production. |
| The book mentions that by reducing the value of a commodity only by a calculation of the total abstract labor that is required we cannot draw an equalization without understanding the social act of labor. Marx then introduces the idea of equal human labor, or the expenditure of the same human labor power. This is the social aspect that is required in labor. If a worker is lazy or extremely slow they will not be performing to the “average” and cannot expect to receive higher value for the commodity that he produces and thus will not be able to have a higher exchange-value from his/her commodity. |
| Hans: Your ideas are right, but you are trying to express them in an elevated language which demands from your audience too much familiarity with the subject matter. Your goal should be to re-explain things in as simple language as possible, instead of throwing certain shorthand concepts at your speaking partner with the expectation that he or she puts things together him- or herself. |
| Something entirely different: In your last sentence you switched your gender-neutral pronouns from they to he to his/her. Decide how you want to do it and stick with it. |
|
|
|||||