The Flawed Logic of Commodified Labor
Marxist Theory Monday #005 (on a Tuesday) focusing in on the dangers of treating labor as a commodity.
Western economic theory defines labor as a commodity, susceptible to forces of supply and demand as any other. Marxist theory however, argues that labor is distinct from commodities and cannot be treated as such. According to Marx, labor is not a physical object or product that can be bought and sold, but rather the physical and mental effort of human beings that culminates in the goods and services which society requires to function.
The flawed logic of commodified labor is inherently riddled with logical fallacies.
Grant me leave, if you will, to pull out my proverbial scale and compare some concepts. On the right, there is a significant amount of some precious metal, say, two tons of copper. On the left is the labor required to mine it. Placing the metal on the right side was easy, with clear results. When you attempt, on the other side, to weigh the labor, you are instantly presented with a problem—labor only exists as a noun conceptually. Materially, however, labor is always a verb.
Take, for example, the concept of an hourly wage. Time is impossible to buy or sell. You can pledge to devote that time to a certain activity, but it has no corporeality. There is no material measurement to be made outside of the laborer himself.
All expressions of capitalism operate around a core set of principles including private ownership, competition, and price mechanism. Individuals or corporations own the means of production (land, factories, resources), and labor is no different. It is not possible to separate a worker from the work itself; to buy and sell labor is to trade in human lives. Just as Roman gladiators, workers can then be pitted against each-other by their employers who benefit from a false sense of scarcity as wages are driven down by competition.
Moreover, the theory of commodified labor ignores the role of social and historical contexts in shaping labor. Labor is not just a physical action, but a result of societal and cultural structures and norms. The value of labor is not solely determined by the market, but also by the social and cultural value placed on certain types of work. Take a moment to appreciate one of the great paintings from the Renaissance Era and compare it to any modern work. The labor required for an artist such as Raphael to paint the Transfiguration is irrefutably different from the labor of today. Compare the architecture of the buildings erected today with those uncompromising Cathedrals of the past.—If we are to judge by the fruits of labor, and stand by our judgements, we must ask ourselves which is more beautiful; the bomb or the building?
Work as competition is not inevitable, nor is it necessarily a catalyst for development. In reality, there is no scarcity of work. Artificial intelligence is not going to “take the jobs away,” and an influx of immigration is not to blame for low, stagnant wages. Instead, the war-like antagonism created by the commoditization of labor pushes all participants forward in a headlong race to the bottom.
In conclusion, the idea of commodified labor is flawed and dangerous. It devalues the true nature of labor as a collective human effort and reduces it to a mere commodity to be bought and sold. We are defined by the sum total of our actions; if a life’s work can be mutilated to a mere unit of fiat currency; if it is something to be dreaded and absconded; in what way could we hope to preserve our dignity, and why?
-the Shultz Report by M. Shultz