[Marxism] Social versus Technical Division of Labour

Peggy Dobbins pegdobbins at gmail.com
Sun Nov 24 15:25:45 MST 2013


I was finishing a reply to Shaun May when what I was writing disappeared.  Did it send?  At any rate, I'd like to ask his take on 
<http://www.international-behind-the-barcode.org/bigMac.html>
Shaun, if you're interested in demystifying what I certainly didn't write for literary effect, begin by googling  Big Mac and Gold Standard.  
 Peggy



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