| This question <85|85> overall <84|86> Feministgal: <1095|133>. |
| Question 131: Is Marx's appeal to experience regarding the reduction of complicated to simple labor a circular argument? |
| [85] Feministgal: circular? It does appear as though the discussion between complicated and simple labor is a circular motion. In the text there is mention that ‘multiplied simple tasks do not equal that of complicated labor’. There is an example of a Doctor in the text. Another example I would add to make the comparison is that of construction worker and an architect. Although the construction worker may have multiple simple tasks that contribute to bulding a building, if it were not for the architect's exact measurements and design there would not be anything to build. Whithin their own sphere complicated and simple labore are somewhat necessary for the other to exist. By this example my belief that circular motion exists in Marx's discussion is strengthened. |
| Hans: I don't find the separation between the professions as natural as you do. I think in a rational society it would be an obvious career path for construction workers to become construction engineers and architects. |
| You mean by circular that both kinds of labor are necessary, they depend on each other. But the question was asking something different. It was wondering whether Marx's argument is circular, whether he went in a circle instead of explaining something. |
|
|
|||||