[Marxism] Social versus Technical Division of Labour

Peggy Dobbins pegdobbins at gmail.com
Sun Nov 24 15:12:17 MST 2013


Dear Shaun, 
The only thing in my post that I hope mystifies  anyone who understands in great depth  the writing of Marx or of Engels is the typo 'Inez's livelihood'  instead of "one's livelihood."

I certainly did not bother to post a reply to your post for literary effect.

I used Big Mac as an example of a commodity the production of which has been so standardized globally that the average labor time contained in one consumed in Vietnam is about the same as one consumed in Birmingham.   Several dissertations have been written on this and some years ago the Economist suggested ironically, but compatibly with Marx's labor of value and his definition of money, that the Big Mac standard replace the gold standard.   The problem is that the labor time contained within a Big Mac and/or all commoditized goods and services has been confused with working time required to buy.   UBS has been publishing a guide to cities around the globe for a couple of decades comparing working time required to buy a Big Mac, rent an apartment of different sizes, etc.   Conflating  labor-time-contained-within with working-time-required-to-buy obfuscates and supplants the key to understanding Surplus Value, and that the term Surplus Value is interchangeable with Social Surplus.   Marx barely touches on Social Surplus.   At least I've found scant mention. But I'd like to suggest that viewing Surplus Value
(Monetized unpaid labor time) and Social Surplus (monetized difference between labor time added and labor time of others consumed) as two terms for the same thing depending on whether you're resigned or not to its re-allocation being dictated by the interests of those whose right to hoard or spend it where they choose is protected by state armed law.  In study circles with workers manufacturing tires, 


http://www.international-behind-the-barcode.org/bigMac.html,
 
 <~~www.peggydobbins.net 

On Nov 24, 2013, at 3:37 PM, shaun may <mnwps at hotmail.com> wrote:

> ======================================================================
> Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
> ======================================================================
> 
> 
> 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. 
> 
> I 
> 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 
> client.
> ~
> *
> P
> <~~www.peggydobbins.net 
> 
> 
> Hello Peggy
> 
> 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.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Shaun May.
> 
> http://shaunpmay.wordpress.com
> 
> http://spmay.wordpress.com
> 
> Marriage is a wonderful institution, but who wants to live in an institution? 
> Groucho Marx
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>                         
> ________________________________________________
> Send list submissions to: Marxism at greenhouse.economics.utah.edu
> Set your options at: http://greenhouse.economics.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/pegdobbins%40gmail.com



More information about the Marxism mailing list