[Marxism] Social versus Technical Division of Labour
mnwps at hotmail.com
Sun Nov 24 13:37:04 MST 2013
Peggy Dobbins wrote :
This may not be the time nor place to raise what I'm about to suggest, but as I
age and capital penetrates every nook and cranny, it appears to me that surplus
value is added by multitudinous forms of commoditized labor power formerly
treated, correctly or not, as bourgeois professional servants parasitical upon
the owners of the industrialized large in size and amount of currency invested
which must depreciated tools employed by industrial Laborers. Terminologically
correct or not, I notice reports of calculated 'wage'/hour of CEOs and others
the gross obscenity and un-deservedness of which scandalizes run of the mill
ideological defenders of what they understand as the capitalist system.
I find it useful in disenthralling Koch captives to define labor by
differentiating it from work. While laboring, earning Inez's livelihood, one may
or may not hone skills employed in one's real work (what humans desire freedom
to purse). This defines labor as bossed time for pay, time spent doing what
another wants the way they want it in exchange for currency universally accepted
in exchanges for the world average labor time embedded in goods and services one
is obliged to pay for to reproduce labor power, qua commodity, qua willingness
and ability to do what capital allocator[s] bet will add more monetized world
average labor time than that consumed by the Laborers who add it.
don't think anything in the paragraph above deviates from anything M or E wrote.
I think it would be helpful to future humans if more long time study-ers
of Marx and Engels
focused on concepts M &E grasped and suggested but
did not flesh out because when they wrote, it was inconceivable to track and
compare productivity of a big mac around the globe to the nanosecond, much less
billable hours spent on the golf course with a client's
Thank you for your contribution to the list, the mystifying contents of which have been noted.
If you could just articulate it in a more concise form and with more clarity, it may serve to facilitate
discussion. Otherwise, I will assume that your posting was largely for literary effect.
I think, perhaps, you are stating, rather obliquely, that you don't understand my post. In order to understand Marx
in greater depth, we have to make a serious study of him. He doesn't come ready-made in bite-sized chunks.
Like a dismembered Big Mac.
Marriage is a wonderful institution, but who wants to live in an institution?
More information about the Marxism