[Marxism] work-needs

["Charles Brown" <charlesb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

S. Artesian:

I think you contradict your first assertion, by your final assertion in
the 
paragraph, but I'm not really sure what you are driving at.

^^^^
CB: OK Yes , I see that my statement is not clear here are the first
and last assertions. What is the contradiction: 
First sentence was:
"The first half of the famous aphorism or whatever it is is "From each
according to ability, ". This recognizes that by birth, humans have a
range of abilities, strengths, weaknesses etc."

Last sentence:

"This principle means if you work longer , you get paid more. If
you don't follow this principle, somebody who works ten hours would be
paid the same as someone who works six hours."

I am talking about two different ways that the principle applies. 
First, humanity is diverse in abilities.  Failure to recognize this
would make Marx's theory unrealistic. So, before we reach higher phase
communism, different abilities ( by birth , but also by training and
learning) are compensated differentially.

Secondly, ( I do leap to a different assumption, so you are correct to
criticize my wording), among those with roughly the same ability ,
somebody who works ten hours is going to produce more use-values than
somebody who works six hours. The difference in "ability" here might be
differences in "endurance". 

^^^^

^^^^



But regarding the first assertion: "Somebody who can carry more weight
in 
the "first phase" gets paid more based on producing more use values per

hour."  Marx specifically does not make this distinction.  He talks
only 
about a chit, a token, a receipt for labor time without regard for 
"strength" and/or the quantity of use-values produced.

^^^^^
CB: I'd say the assumption of "average socially necessary labor time"
still applies; and different levels of labor training also still
applies.

  It's with regard to use-values produced per time. What other
criterion would there be for to each according to work ?  

^^^^^^

Regarding the last assertion:  I can't figure out what you mean here.
In the 
first assertion, you get paid more for more use values per time unit.
Here 
you say that others would have to work longer hours. 
^^^
CB: Most people would produce more use-values in 10 hours than they
would in six hours.



 Are you arguing that 
someone who works ten hours in a mine that has less rich seams of ore
will 
not be paid -- will not be able to get as many goods for his/her
needs--in 
this "first phase"-- as someone who works 6 hours, or 10 hours, in a
mine 
with ore of greater richness, easier access, and most importantly, more

advanced machinery?

^^^^
CB:  The means and instruments of production would have to be held
constant for comparison between the labors.

^^^^^^^

That's what I think the logic of your positions comes down to, and in
my 
view, that's no phase of socialism at all.

^^^^^
CB: I don't think Marx's idea of socialism in the first phase is that
everybody gets paid the same number of chits, regardless of training,
native ability or hours worked.





This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. 
www.surfcontrol.com

________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40archives.econ.utah.edu