summercomfort (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
summercomfort) wrote2002-10-28 11:06 pm
summercomfort) wrote2002-10-28 11:06 pm
Of Marx and Smith.
Wow, Wage, Labor, and Capital was a lot more easier to get through after Capital (which was in turn easier than the 1844 Manuscripts, but those ideas were so raw that I didn't get them.) So reading that has really helped me understand/think about Marx's stuff. (It's like reading the outline after reading the essay)
Division of Labor
In Smith's world, Division of Labor is natural result of human's desire to exchange.
In Marx's world, Division of Labor is pressed upon the Laborer by the Capitalist.
Competition
In Smith: competition is good for the consumer
In Marx: competition is bad for the laborer
Marx is mostly talking about the Capitalist who, when pursuing his natural interests, makes things miserable for the Laborer, which is what Smith said!
Since (according to Marx), everything in the world is dependent on the value of commodities, everything is based on "earning more" by "producing more cheaply" by "increasing surplus-value" through the "further exploitation of labor-power".
Since (according to Smith), everything in the world is dependent on the market, everything is based on "exchanging more" by "competition for consumers", where everything balances out to a "natural value" by "supply" and "demand".
Smith: "Division of Labor makes people stupid. Therefore we must educate them."
Marx: "word." (division of labor also makes the people serve the machines. boo.)
Smith: "combination of capitalists is bad for consumers, therefore we should regulate them."
Marx: "Capitalists suck. period." (They suck because they have this vicious system in place that makes the laborers screw themselves, many many times over.)
Smith: by pursuing individual selfish interests, we make society better!
Marx: we *are* society, if only we can stop selling our soul to the capitalists.
Now here's a question that prof proposed in class: does Marx's ideas still apply today? Can it still apply today w/ some amendment? Or do we have to start over with new theory?
The problem with Marx's theory is that it's extrapolated from a world that is entirely centered on mechanical production. Nowadays, there is a much larger service sector, and (imo) centered more on information. So... can Marx's theories apply nowadays? Is there still a "capitalist" class and a "laborer" class? How do we take globalization into account? (the fact that the majority of the mechanical labor is done outside of the country) At least for America, I think some of his theories still applies. Instead of producing a material commodity, we produce intellectual commodities that are then alienated from ourselves. There is also constant division of labor in an effort to compete with other people. But division of labor doesn't make us more stupid and replacable in the marx/smith sense, instead, it makes us more specialized and more integrated into the global market, which creates a surplus work force, which lowers our wages. And the market can't keep expanding b/c we're already global, so... I'm not making sense anymore. I don't make sense to myself. bah.
Or course, I haven't read all of Smith, and definitely not all of Marx. (of assigned reading, still have to read German Ideology and Communist Manifesto)
And now I can safely say that, Marx and Smith rox, even if their writing is excruciatingly hard to get through...
Division of Labor
In Smith's world, Division of Labor is natural result of human's desire to exchange.
In Marx's world, Division of Labor is pressed upon the Laborer by the Capitalist.
Competition
In Smith: competition is good for the consumer
In Marx: competition is bad for the laborer
Marx is mostly talking about the Capitalist who, when pursuing his natural interests, makes things miserable for the Laborer, which is what Smith said!
Since (according to Marx), everything in the world is dependent on the value of commodities, everything is based on "earning more" by "producing more cheaply" by "increasing surplus-value" through the "further exploitation of labor-power".
Since (according to Smith), everything in the world is dependent on the market, everything is based on "exchanging more" by "competition for consumers", where everything balances out to a "natural value" by "supply" and "demand".
Smith: "Division of Labor makes people stupid. Therefore we must educate them."
Marx: "word." (division of labor also makes the people serve the machines. boo.)
Smith: "combination of capitalists is bad for consumers, therefore we should regulate them."
Marx: "Capitalists suck. period." (They suck because they have this vicious system in place that makes the laborers screw themselves, many many times over.)
Smith: by pursuing individual selfish interests, we make society better!
Marx: we *are* society, if only we can stop selling our soul to the capitalists.
Now here's a question that prof proposed in class: does Marx's ideas still apply today? Can it still apply today w/ some amendment? Or do we have to start over with new theory?
The problem with Marx's theory is that it's extrapolated from a world that is entirely centered on mechanical production. Nowadays, there is a much larger service sector, and (imo) centered more on information. So... can Marx's theories apply nowadays? Is there still a "capitalist" class and a "laborer" class? How do we take globalization into account? (the fact that the majority of the mechanical labor is done outside of the country) At least for America, I think some of his theories still applies. Instead of producing a material commodity, we produce intellectual commodities that are then alienated from ourselves. There is also constant division of labor in an effort to compete with other people. But division of labor doesn't make us more stupid and replacable in the marx/smith sense, instead, it makes us more specialized and more integrated into the global market, which creates a surplus work force, which lowers our wages. And the market can't keep expanding b/c we're already global, so... I'm not making sense anymore. I don't make sense to myself. bah.
Or course, I haven't read all of Smith, and definitely not all of Marx. (of assigned reading, still have to read German Ideology and Communist Manifesto)
And now I can safely say that, Marx and Smith rox, even if their writing is excruciatingly hard to get through...