On Mon, 26 Sep 1994 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> This classic Marxist definition of production overlooks the simple fact that
> without the input of capital, most labor would be very unproductive. If my
> employer provides me with a computer that allows me to produce ten times as
> much work in the same amount of time, why should I own all the product, when
> the employer contributed substantially to our communal productivity? If
> Michael's socialist definition were correct, then all workers might as well be
> self-employed. Then they could keep all the product of their labor, however
> meager it would be.
>
I really hate to get into this old debate on this list, but I can't let a
remark this ignorant pass uncorrected. Only someone who hadn't read Marx
(or someone having read who didn't understand a word) could make this
argument. Marx and his heirs have always placed great emphasis on
technical change - how competition drives it, how it affects various
capitals, how it affects labor, and more recently how it affects and is
affected by the environment, and how it greatly increases physical output
and monetary wealth while leaving behind many forms of destruction in its
wake. Capital equipment, in Marxian language, is the embodiment of past
labor; the computer isn't merely a thing, but the product of millions of
human workhours that only comes to life when a human being works it. If
you're going to comment on Marx, please read him first.
Doug
Doug Henwood [[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Left Business Observer
212-874-4020 (voice)
212-874-3137 (fax)
