Alex Lee
Blog 1 (Marx)
Labor is said to be a commodity- bought and sold at a price or exchange-value, where it’s bought for a wage which are “the sum of money paid by the capitalist for a particular labour time or for a particular output of labour” (Marx, 204). When labor is said to be a commodity this is where strikes from unions such as the teacher’s from last year arise. Unions such as teachers are not mere objects to be used up during the “production process” (Burns, Common Dreams). This mentality that humans are articles of commerce is the same reason for strikes to come about.
Estranged labour, from the political economy standpoint, is that labor is a ‘loss of reality’ for the worker, objectification as ‘loss of the object’ and ‘object-bondage,’ leads to alienation (Marx, 72). How can we make production of commodities interesting for the worker? How can we make labor, which produces great things for the rich, and for the worker privation, important to the worker?
In regards to labor being a commodity I found an article talking about labor movements and why we had to create unions to give the ‘proletariat’ some importance. I believe Marx speaks on the revolting of this class, and we see it through strikes, where the unions of a certain job will stop working in protest to how they are treated, how much their paid, etc. Supporting the proletariat, one historian Sidney Fine says, “The property right of the worker in his job… was superior to the right of the company to use its property as it saw fit since the workers had invested their lives in the plant whereas the stockholders of the company had invested only their dollars” (Fine). This shows that the capitalist, we’ll call them the stockholders; only invest their money when the worker is on the frontline keeping the company afloat. I would say that labor and the worker are more than a commodity but a momentous attribute to be had for a capitalist that utilizes these independents.
Marx says, “… the more the worker produces, the less he has to consume; the more values he creates, the more valueless, the more unworthy he becomes…” (Marx, 72). In a Montreal review in April, 2010, writer Paul Thomas speaks about a couple of his friends, one being a nuclear physicist, who left the lab to become a part-time valet runner so he can write books and essays in his free time, or a musician and a part-time university teacher who wants to quit to be a truck driver because he enjoys them so much. These passions, from different sorts of work, are what drive people in many jobs. They lose themselves in the jobs they start but go for the material that intrigues them. Losing oneself only happens when someone does not have ambitions or drive to get what they want, when they do have an excuse to lose themselves and not know who they are or have become. This is how we make production so the worker doesn’t lose interest in their work, help to show what opportunities are out there as children and have them go search what they believe is their calling, this helps develop interest.
Blog 1 (Marx)
Labor is said to be a commodity- bought and sold at a price or exchange-value, where it’s bought for a wage which are “the sum of money paid by the capitalist for a particular labour time or for a particular output of labour” (Marx, 204). When labor is said to be a commodity this is where strikes from unions such as the teacher’s from last year arise. Unions such as teachers are not mere objects to be used up during the “production process” (Burns, Common Dreams). This mentality that humans are articles of commerce is the same reason for strikes to come about.
Estranged labour, from the political economy standpoint, is that labor is a ‘loss of reality’ for the worker, objectification as ‘loss of the object’ and ‘object-bondage,’ leads to alienation (Marx, 72). How can we make production of commodities interesting for the worker? How can we make labor, which produces great things for the rich, and for the worker privation, important to the worker?
In regards to labor being a commodity I found an article talking about labor movements and why we had to create unions to give the ‘proletariat’ some importance. I believe Marx speaks on the revolting of this class, and we see it through strikes, where the unions of a certain job will stop working in protest to how they are treated, how much their paid, etc. Supporting the proletariat, one historian Sidney Fine says, “The property right of the worker in his job… was superior to the right of the company to use its property as it saw fit since the workers had invested their lives in the plant whereas the stockholders of the company had invested only their dollars” (Fine). This shows that the capitalist, we’ll call them the stockholders; only invest their money when the worker is on the frontline keeping the company afloat. I would say that labor and the worker are more than a commodity but a momentous attribute to be had for a capitalist that utilizes these independents.
Marx says, “… the more the worker produces, the less he has to consume; the more values he creates, the more valueless, the more unworthy he becomes…” (Marx, 72). In a Montreal review in April, 2010, writer Paul Thomas speaks about a couple of his friends, one being a nuclear physicist, who left the lab to become a part-time valet runner so he can write books and essays in his free time, or a musician and a part-time university teacher who wants to quit to be a truck driver because he enjoys them so much. These passions, from different sorts of work, are what drive people in many jobs. They lose themselves in the jobs they start but go for the material that intrigues them. Losing oneself only happens when someone does not have ambitions or drive to get what they want, when they do have an excuse to lose themselves and not know who they are or have become. This is how we make production so the worker doesn’t lose interest in their work, help to show what opportunities are out there as children and have them go search what they believe is their calling, this helps develop interest.