This question <68|68> overall <71|73> Tim: <645|123>.

Question 134: Is Marx's appeal to experience regarding the reduction of complicated to simple labor a circular argument?

[72] Tim: Yes. Marx says that markets assume all labor to be equal and that it only differs quantitatively despite the fact that labor can and does differ qualitatively. The lack of laws to account for this discrepancy and the markets' longevity obviously void the qualitative view and perpetuate the fact that all labor can be expressed through multiples of simple labor.

Hans: You are on the right track, but you are missing one step in Marx's argument. Since the labors are so different, Marx concludes that the equal substance behind the exchange-values is not the concrete labor, but the abstract labor, the expenditure of human labor-power in the commodities. This would resolve the problem of finding something equal in the commodities if all labor-powers were equal. They are mostly equal, much more equal than the labors, but there are still qualitative differences between them. Instead of explaining how these qualitative differences are reduced to merely quantitative differences, Marx says, we do not need to know this, because we know from experience that this reduction happens. Isn't this a circular argument since this is the same experience which Marx is trying to explain?

Your writing style is much too condensed. You must explain things in such a way that someone who does not already know the answer can understand it.

	Students enrolled for Econ 5080 in 2009fa are invited to give feedback to the above message Pseudonym:      UofU ID:   Text: