Thursday, September 30, 2010
Sunday, September 26, 2010
Exploitation vs. Domination
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Slowly getting high off of ST
I was rereading Marx and Engels, and I couldn't quite understand what M&E meant by this statement and hoped you guys could provide some thoughts on the matter.
So on pg.206 at the bottom, M&E talk about how the cost of production of simple labor power is equal to the subsistence the worker requires to survive and "reproduction" (206). But what exactly does M&E mean by reproduction? Reproduction of the worker? Reproduction of the skills needed to help that new worker obtain the same such skills? What does he mean?
I was further confused by what he meant by the "wage minimum...does not hold good for the single individual but for the species" (206). Double negatives screw with my brain and I am confused as to whether it is beneficial for the individual or not, or for the species or not and why is it beneficial or not beneficial for either party?
My last point of confusion is about "individual workers...do not get enough to be able to exist and reproduce themselves; but the wages of the whole working class level down, within their fluctuations, to this minimum" (206). Do individual workers not get enough for subsistence for their own lives because some people of their species/same jobs need less subsistence and as a result, the required wages given out are lowered than what some individuals may need?
What are your thoughts?
Friday, September 24, 2010
Child Labor in India for the Commonwealth Games
Harvard Fellow and Trafficking Expert Siddhartha Kara Finds Child Labor for Commonwealth Games
Thursday, September 23, 2010
But when they say "we," they mean "you." Sacrifice is for the little people.
Tuesday, September 21, 2010
My Hegelian Moment
Monday, September 20, 2010
Memo 9/13
I think this music video exemplifies some of Marx's ideas.
He says, "On the one hand, there have started into life industrial and scientific forces, which no epoch of the former human history had ever suspected. On the other hand there exist symptoms of decay, far surpassing the horrors recorded of the latter times of the Roman empire" (577). This video shows three depictions of this "horror" with the mindlessness of divided factory labor, the effects of pollution, and the aesthetic unpleasantness of industrial society.
Marx goes on to say, "Machinery, gifted with the wonderful power of shortening and fructifying human labour, we behold starving and overworking it...The victories of art seem bought by the loss of character" (578). In the video we see this trade off. Machinery can now replace the Factory Band, but now the music has lost all character. The sense of artistic expression that comes with the creativity of being human is lost. This could be seen as Smith's idea of progress gone too far.
Most Important Sentence
In order for this transition to occur, the most important thing is a revolution. The ruling class needs to be overthrown through a revolution in order for the classless group to carry through with communism, because the ruling class cannot be overthrown in any other way.
Memo 09/20/2010
Best part of my memo for 9/20.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Best Part of My Memo
Sentence from the Monday memo
Best Part from Monday's Memo 9/19
Best little chunk from my Memo
Best sentence from my Memo
Friday, September 17, 2010
Sunday, September 12, 2010
I Love Lucy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4wp3m1vg06Q
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
Smith vs. Marx and Engels
A key difference that I noticed between Smith and MnE seem to be that of an idealist vs. a realist. While smith suggests what could and should happen as a result of the division of labor, Marx seems to argue against Smith, reporting on actual events that prove Smith's assumptions wrong.
specialization in a job brings forth creativity in an individual to
Smith suggests that a specialized people make for a better country - assuming fair and deliberate trade and a well-governed society, whereas Marx implies that a division of class is the result of the division of labor - the fewer upper class capitalists get rich and exploit the greater mass of the poorer working class, which exemplifies an unjust society.
Monday, September 6, 2010
A false assumption by Smith
A crude understanding of today’s American middle (non-manufacturing) class is as follows (this assumes that services are peripheral/secondary to consumer goods):
The class designs goods (engineers, sketches, etc) à the class is paid for its labor à the designs are manufactured abroad à the manufacturing labor is paid à the goods are returned to the US and sold back to the non-manufacturing class.
The great assumption that Smith makes is that the manufacturing labor is a politically empowered class. That is clearly not the case. Those with the political power are the owners of mass capital, and they are free to find their manufacturing labor in countries which have a very low standard of living and low standard of worker rights. Therefore, the productivity of the manufacturing class, it seems, is greatly disconnected from the increase in profit which that productivity creates. Though it doesn’t directly follow from this, I would argue that in fact the increase in the division of labor has led to a decrease in labor opulence! The curve may be U-shaped: initially it may have held true, however the division of labor is now so great that the laborer is almost completely removed from the final good (and its profits), and therefore cannot realize that an increase in her/his productivity leads to greater production (and greater profit).