At 11:57 AM 10/21/97 -0400, Jim Devine wrote, inter alia:
>"But as heavy industry develops the creation of real wealth depends
>less on labor time and on the quantity of labor utilized than on the
>power of mechanized agents which are set into motion during the labor
>time. The powerful effectiveness of these agents, in its turn, bears
>no relation to the immediate labor time that their labor cost. It
>depends rather on the general state of science and on techonological
>progress, or the aplication of this science to production."
>
>Now, Marx will insist that science and technology are the creations
>of human beings. However the emphasis is no longer on "labour" or the
>"worker"; rather, it is on the "understanding of nature", "the
>general powers of the human mind", "intellect", "the application of
>mechanical and chemical laws" - the worker ceasing to be "an
>essential part of the process of production". Indeed, with automation
>the "human factor" is limited to overseeing - "supervising" - the
>production process.
In that context, I'd like to ask (this is a genuine question, not a sneaky
critique) what is the meaning of the term "labor?" I see at least three
distinct meanings: (i) the productive capacity of people in a certain social
class or those people collectively (meaning "blue collar" workers and their
work); (ii) any human effort socially required to produce any commodity (to
my understanging, that is close to the notion of "use value of labor"); and
(iii) labor power (i.e. the quantified exchange value of labor as defined in
item ii above).
This distinction is directly relevant for the proposition between work and
its products, tangible or abstract, aka commodity.
Assuming definition (i) the proposition that all commodity, individually or
collectively (aka wealth, knowledge, etc.) is a product of labor (=working
class) might be sexy (for it defines wealth owners as parasites), but rather
difficult to show empirically. At the very best, the emprically demonstrable
version of this proposition is that labor is a necessary condition of
accummulated commodity (wealth or knowledge).
Assuming definition (ii), the above proposition implies that accumulated
commodity (wealth, knowledge) is a product of a distinct socially defined
class of people, althought it remains an open question whether and under
what conditions the accumulated total is equivalent to or greater than the
sum total of the efforts of the individuals in question. This
interpretation extends the term labor beyond the meaning implied in (i), and
includes services of physicians, artists, writers, scientists, clerical
workers, managers etc. -- in a work anyone whose work produces tangible or
intellectual product that is then appropriated by the owner of the means of
production (corporation, university, hospital, playhouse etc.) and sold or
accummulated as commodity.
Assuming definition (iii) the proposition implies finding a mathematical
formula expressing the relationship between two quantities, a measure of the
total effort exerted, and a measure of the total product of that effort.
My next question is which (if any) of these three definitions are most
useful to understand capitalist relations of production? I am less
interested in the exegesis of the holy scriptures (i.e. what Marx & Co. did
or did not say), than in the ability to explain empirical reality i.e.
asking the right questions, formulating the right empirical hypotheses, and
pointing to the right direction where the answers can be found.
Regards,
wojtek sokolowski
institute for policy studies
johns hopkins university
baltimore, md 21218
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
voice: (410) 516-4056
fax: (410) 516-8233
