“I wasn't trying to provide a comprehensive definition of work. I was explaining the importance of work. Not all work is beneficial, and not all work is good.
There is an abstract moral value to work because it is an action with a purpose. Dealing drugs could be considered work, but not morally good work. Even if the drug dealer is trying to feed his family, he's using bad actions to achieve that outcome.”
Ok. This makes more sense, but it sounds now more like the normative importance is not so much attached to work but beneficial work for oneself and one’s family through legal means. I think this type of work is disappearing because of capitalism globally. Sweatshops and maquilas are often defended by people as raising the “standard of living” so that people live on one dollar a day rather than 50 cents (not to mention the violence and rupture created by forcing open markets through international predation and Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs)). “Illicit” refugee populations escaping dire circumstances are forced into working on Southern farms in the US – often involving literal slavery (Operation Blooming Onion, for example). These markets are illegal, but I would argue crucial for capitalism to be “humane” to people in the Global North (well, we’ll see where tariffs take us as far as reshoring factories – I know in Florida there is rumbling about SB 918 to allow highschoolers to get rid of all regulations regulating child labor for 16 and 17 year olds which is being lobbied and supported by the Associated Builders and Contractors of Florida who lost lots of workers to deportations).
This kind of labor doesn’t really help the family to my mind, and it might help oneself only insofar as any other alternative is simply starving. In fact, the social conservative critique of laissez-faire capitalism from the Catholic Integralists and their ilk has been the razing of the nuclear family by failing to socially integrate people into their community.
“There is also a market value of work determined by a myriad of factors. An employer values work differently than the worker. The customer also places a different value on that work. Changing external conditions also affect the value. This is a basic concept that is not unique to Capitalism.”
This depends: are you talking about exchange value (which Marx reduces to just plain value)? In the sense that some commodities are valued differently by others depending on their location in the capitalist circuit of production and exchange, and these individuals have different opinions on how it should be valued? Maybe, but there is still, at bottom, one price that something is sold for. You don’t need to buy the labor theory of value if you don’t want, but the customer doesn’t really get the final say on the price of the product. If my overhead costs for labor and materials are x and y, then the price must be x+y+z. And z is surplus-value reinvested back into the company. If the customer can’t pay for it, then the producer can’t sell it because the product being sold is priced well above the social average of labor time used to create the product; they might have to sell at a loss or not even bother selling at all. That’s a lot of jargon for a basic point: but the idea is something like this:
Gary is selling bottle openers. However, each bottle opener takes 1.5 times longer to make than the competing bottle openers on the market. Maybe this is because Gary is relying on outdated technology, or his workers are organizing a stoppage, or what have you. Each product has more labor time put into it than the social average, and this will be reflected in price – though not necessarily in a 1 to 1 ratio (he might have to sell at a loss). Gary’s product is not going to be able to compete with bottle openers on the market, and so his product will flop. Despite spending more labor-time (1.5 times more to be exact, which must be paid for) on each bottle opener, they still have to compete with the cheaply produced ones.
One might say “well, a robot will manufacture the bottle openers for me,” but those robots are themselves products of human labor time and transfer value through its wear and tear to the product. Of course, labor is not the only source of wealth: there is also nature, but value in the Marxian sense is produced through human labor. At bottom though, even if you don't buy Marx's argument here: opinions on price don't matter because the factors of production that go into making a product, as well as the disciplining force of supply and demand, determine the price for you in a capitalist system. Any capitalist selling above price will have to lower his price if there is competition or else go broke. And the consumer can try "haggling," but if the capitalist knows that the price of a commodity is x+y+z - he's not going to sell below x+y+z unless he really needs to.
In any case, this is basically Capital Vol. 1’s first few chapters.
“If everyone in a community is a corn farmer with no other fields of expertise (get it? "fields"?), there will be a shortage of many things, even in a Communist utopia. If a dairy farmer moves in, his work will have a much greater "market value" (so to speak) even if there is no greater moral value.”
Well, I’m not sure how much market there will be in communist utopia (though there are market socialists), but I take your point to mean something along the lines of the question of “what about occupations nobody wants to do/nobody does?” Or, you’re simply saying that in the realm of exchange, a new industry will create demand for products that previously did not exist in the community – and thus increase market value.
I’m not defending the Marxist utopia (which doesn't mean that Marxists can't take action - striking and forming co-ops and so on. Not even strictly averse to violence since in the Global South - work conditions are certainly violent). I predict that if technological development increased there could be a dent in labor time spent on doing work nobody wants to do – though this transformation would need to happen outside capitalism (because technological improvements lend themselves to either extending the workday or intensifying labor). All this talk about these other professions is fine, but then it bears mentioning that certain kinds of work probably ought to be abandoned on moral grounds. If making “product x” truly requires a team of underpaid maquila workers to produce them for pennies on the dollar, then is “product x” worth it? Are there other ways it can be made?
“That is not something that is unique to Capitalism. Let's say in our corn-farming utopia, no one owns a car. An auto mechanic is not going to provide much value and will be "out of work" (again, so to speak) unless he acquires a different skill that has value in the environment he finds himself in. Should the commune devote resources to build a car repair shop because that's the type of work the mechanic knows and desires to do? Or will the mechanic have to find a different form of work?”
Small real-life communes probably have this discussion and vote on it. There would be no discussion in the capitalist society – you’d either need to acquire the means to produce cars, do your market research, and try to advertise your product, or you would give up and become a corn farmer. But in any case, I’m not defining the rules and procedures through which a possible future society would function because doing so is speculative. My point was that capitalism vaunts freedom through labor (to afford groceries and other necessities) but prevents many people from laboring necessarily (because allowing them to work would increase inflation, because their industry is obsolete, because a business is shedding workers to increase share prices, because a CEO has an exit option, etc.). So, if you take labor to have normative importance (and I think you do) then capitalism does not allow for everyone to labor.
“There are still fundamental similarities in all Marxist thought regarding the nature of man. Namely, Marxists reject human essentialism, even if humanists believe there are some fixed aspects in the nature of man. How human nature plays into the dialectical process may be different, but it is still the dialectic which primarily or entirely shapes human nature. I understand there is plenty of nuance to convolute the matter, but I think this is probably a fair summarization.”
First, your beef is with Rousseau. Second, your beef is also with other human essentialists:
Of the political sort of justice, one kind is natural and another is conventional. What is naturally just has the same power everywhere, [20] and is not affected by whether it seems so to people or not, but what is conventionally just is something that at first makes no difference to do this way or some other way, but when people have established it, does make a difference, such as being released for a ransom of one mina, or sacrificing a goat but not two sheep, and also those things that people set down by law for particular situations, such as sacrificing to Brasidas, and things of the sort that are decided by a vote. And it seems to some people that all justice is of this sort [conventional], because what is by nature is unchangeable and has the same power everywhere, just as fire burns both here and among the Persians, while they see what is just being changed. But this is not the way it is, though it is so in a certain sense, and while among the gods, no doubt, nothing changes at all, among us there is something that is by nature even though everything is changeable; nevertheless, one kind of thing is by nature and another kind is not by nature. What sort of thing, among the things that are capable of happening in different ways, is by nature, and what sort is not but is conventional and by agreement, even if both are equally changeable, is clear. And the same distinction will fit other things, for the right hand is stronger by nature, and yet it is possible for everyone to become ambidextrous.
Aristotle Nicomachean Ethics Book 5 Ch. 7 trans. Joe Sachs
Aristotle recognizes that human agency can change that which is considered “natural” (I can write with both of my hands to develop ambidexterity) even though he posits that there is a “human nature.”
Also, Marxist thought is compatible with different views of human nature (humans are naturally x, y, and z, and it is capitalism which doesn’t change human nature but represses it – and this is more the perspective of Marcuse and the other Freudo-Marxists). As a more-of-a-Marxist-than-not, I can say fairly confidently that “human nature” to me is not important for my Marxism. Regardless of whether a future society comes about, my objection is to the present. People seem to take for granted their weekends off, overtime pay, and so on, as if it were not the labor movement (including, one imagines, many Marxists, socialists, anarchists, and other radicals) that established those protections to begin with. Obviously, the attainment of labor protections is an uneven process that does involve capitalist cession (there’s an article by Hacker and Pierson about how the development of Social Security was publicly lauded but privately dreaded by the NAM and their member companies) but the Marxists had a lot to do with the 8-hour workday in the US. The Knights of Labor, Socialistic Party, and a large number of trade unions in the early 20th century and late 19th century paved the way for contemporary labor protections. And they're not established on the firmest of grounds.
As I mentioned before, in Florida, child labor laws are being eviscerated because of a lack of cheap labor which used to be provided by undocumented migrants (the sectors most affected were the ones lobbying for the bill). And when Florida voters passed an amendment to hike minimum wages, the sycophantic bootlickers and other parasites in the Florida legislature tried to allow employers to reclassify some jobs as “internships” (which is not defined in Florida law or in the bill itself) so that the minimum wage hike that the people voted on (with a 2/3 majority at least for an amendment to pass) would not take effect. It failed. But other bills haven’t. And even now the minimum wage is not enforced because investigators are short in supply. I’m mostly Marxist for 2 reasons: 1) because the existing protections for labor need to be guarded vigilantly and with more than just voting in the corrupt, soulless millionaires in either party and 2) because capitalist markets benefit the Global North at the expense of the Global South (by and large). And of course I would prefer to live in a socialist economy directed by a competent vanguard or leader – but that’s in a future I cannot access or deliberately plan, nor do I see someone in the current party system who can lead. No revolution is planned. George Washington did not wait to make sure democracy "made sense" or work out the details of the founding documents completely before he started shooting his musket. If the Articles of Confederation prove anything, it's that the people who founded the country did not sweat the details - they felt oppressed and smashed the oppressor's forces. The rest of the details have to be worked out practically after the fact. Do I have a plan, or could I know how a communist state would function? No. What I do know is that the capitalists do not have my interest at heart – their interests are class interests – and they are separate from the workers’ interest – and the democratic machinery of the state keeps them in power because the state is occupied by particular people with capitalist class interests. The Senate is filled with millionaires.
So much for my reason to be a Marxist (which, as you can see, makes no assumption about the human or human nature – it only recognizes that there are classes and class conflict). Human nature discourse presumes that there exists a “human nature” to begin with which is meaningful and profound. Such an assumption steps into metaphysical musings on the “truth” about humans – all of which is uninteresting to me. Here is what “human nature” discourse boils down to: self-evident observations about “human beings” (everyone needs to eat), trans-historical “truths” spoken with utmost confidence about humans which leave out everyone who is not from the speaker’s nation-state, region, or history (it is human nature to want to marry, practice a religion, own a piece of land, feel jealous, angry, or possessive in a particular situation, etc.), and lines of demarcations between political friends and enemies (this particular group of people for their racial, sexual, or national characteristics are against human nature). If you feel otherwise because you derive an understanding of human nature from your religious faith that is another thing, and I would not intrude upon it. With that said, human nature eludes scientific study. I can’t measure it. I can’t classify it. I can’t observe it save for designating some things “products of human nature” and other things not. It’s not a substance. It can be theorized about, but this is the extent of our knowledge of it. It must be taken on faith because rigorous study cannot reveal much about it. The “human condition” and “what distinguishes human beings from other species” is more observable, but then it is merely a list of things that human possess. And the “human condition” is the condition we are thrust into. These conditions (which society one lives in for example) are eminently changeable.
Oh, and I am not convinced that this is how Althusser thinks of the human being. He is an antihumanist Marxist. Chantal Mouffe definitely doesn't agree. And Fanon was skeptical of European humanity. He wanted to create a "new humanity" but even then - this Marxist humanist was skeptical and unsure it would ever happen. His main concern was killing the colonizers, asserting national independence, and developing industry.
“When I talk about foundational principles, I am talking mainly about the fundamental beliefs that typically make up a world view. These beliefs are at the top of the hierarchy in terms of forming a coherent system. For example, if I believe in a God who created mankind and is the ultimate judge of the universe, that will significantly impact many, if not all, of my views.
I believe most people do not intentionally hold to views that are contradictory. This mainly happens out of ignorance. It could be ignorance of the specifics of their own views, or an ignorance of how the different views they hold interact (coherently or incoherently) When the contradiction is discovered, they either need to adjust or abandon their one or more of their views. Of course, some may ignore the issue to remain in ignorance, though it is likely they will eventually have to confront the issue and make a choice (like at the ballot box).
In regard to this concept, a diffuse acquisition of ideas is more susceptible to ignorance than a systematic one. Systematic acquisition reduces the chance of overlooking glaring logical contradictions. No matter which form a person uses, they either hold a view or they don't with varying levels of ignorance.”
Meet Bob. Bob is a farmer living in rural Arkansas. He believes in Christ, capitalism, and gun rights. Bob wants high speed internet in his county because he can’t access his email or do online banking for his small farm, he wants to advertise his products to supermarkets, and he is hoping to find willing farmhands on Indeed. There are so few people living in his town, and the cost of installation is so high, that AT&T won’t come to set up the wi-fi. So, he sends a letter to his senator asking them to incentivize (through lucrative subsidies) wi-fi companies to set up high speed connections in rural areas. Is the fact that he wants subsidies for internet installation a violation of his free-market proclivities (since it interrupts price stability among other things) or is it in support of them because it will help him and others compete on the market (i.e. through banking online, advertising, and finding farmhands)? And if the answer to that question is “well it depends how he justifies it” does it follow that the manner in which we reconcile our beliefs does not follow from a deductive logic – but our own justifications which are self-serving? And if so, who, besides ourselves, can be the final judge on if our ideas are “consonant?” Motivated reasoning is prevalent in all people – especially the educated. It would be an incredible act of intellectual hubris to assert “here is my system of thought – it is obviously reconcilable and follows deductively.”
