<p>Given that Marx interprets the dynamics of supply and demand for labor like any other good: the quantity of labor supplied increases as the wage increases.</p>
<p>-) Wages of the workforce are kept at the subsistence level and therefore workers are precluded from <em>saving</em>.</p>
<p>According to Marx's labor theory of value, the value of a commodity is given by the quantity of labor incorporated into it, measurable with the duration of time required to produce it. A good therefore has more value the greater the quantity of human labor incorporated into it. According to Marx, the working class is prevented from accessing the means of production and in order not to starve, the proletariat is forced to sell its labor under the conditions established by the other party. The capitalist counterpart would find itself in the historical condition of being able to exploit the subordinate class by producing and selling products at a price which incorporates labor that the capitalists would not have remunerated (<em>surplus value</em>).</p>
<p>-) As the repulsiveness of the work increases, the wage decreases.</p>
<p>As a consequence of the bargaining power of the capitalist and the fact that the more repulsive a job is, the more labor-based it is (anyone can do it without particoular skills) there is a job offer (<em>Reserve army of labor</em>) that accepts job offers at lower wages.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-06-23T09:15:09.880Z
2024-06-23T09:15:09.880Z
marco tognoli
<p>The following extract is from <em>The Communist Manifesto</em> (1848) by Engels and Marx:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>The cost of production of a workman is restricted, almost entirely, to the means of subsistence that he requires for his maintenance and for the propagation of his race. But the price of a commodity, and therefore also of labor, is equal to its cost of production. In proportion, therefore, as the repulsiveness of the work increases, the wage decreases.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Apparently, this is an argument with the following premises:</p>
<ul>
<li><p>The cost of production of a workman is restricted, almost entirely, to the means of subsistence that he requires for his maintenance and for the propagation of his race.</p>
</li>
<li><p>The price of a commodity, and therefore also of labor, is equal to its cost of production.</p>
</li>
</ul>
<p>and the following conclusion:</p>
<ul>
<li>As the repulsiveness of the work increases, the wage decreases.</li>
</ul>
<p>This is very vague. It is not clear how the repulsiveness of the work (the conclusion) is related to the cost of the production or to the price of a commodity (the premises).</p>
<p>Perhaps the argument also includes some implicit premises which are not stated here.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2024-06-19T10:45:41.170Z
It will be hard to produce a qualified interpretation - the sentence and concepts used do not make use of any key Marxian concepts and what Marx and Engels means here is not necessarily something the field of economy will give the best answer for. Nevertheless, could they not simply be arguing that an increase in 'repulsiveness of work' lowers the 'means of subsistence'. This was not written in the days when a work day - at least for a factory worker - was 7-8 hours. The point is that subsistence would be closer related to work conditions.
Jesper Hybel
<marxism><labor-cost><communism><karl-marx>
What do Engels and Marx mean here?
apadana
# What do Engels and Marx mean here?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2024-06-19)

The following extract is from *The Communist Manifesto* (1848) by Engels and Marx:

> The cost of production of a workman is restricted, almost entirely, to the means of subsistence that he requires for his maintenance and for the propagation of his race. But the price of a commodity, and therefore also of labor, is equal to its cost of production. In proportion, therefore, as the repulsiveness of the work increases, the wage decreases.

Apparently, this is an argument with the following premises:

* The cost of production of a workman is restricted, almost entirely, to the means of subsistence that he requires for his maintenance and for the propagation of his race.
* The price of a commodity, and therefore also of labor, is equal to its cost of production.

and the following conclusion:

* As the repulsiveness of the work increases, the wage decreases.

This is very vague. It is not clear how the repulsiveness of the work (the conclusion) is related to the cost of the production or to the price of a commodity (the premises).

Perhaps the argument also includes some implicit premises which are not stated here.

**Tags:** marxism, labor-cost, communism, karl-marx

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: It will be hard to produce a qualified interpretation - the sentence and concepts used do not make use of any key Marxian concepts and what Marx and Engels means here is not necessarily something the field of economy will give the best answer for. Nevertheless, could they not simply be arguing that an increase in 'repulsiveness of work' lowers the 'means of subsistence'. This was not written in the days when a work day - at least for a factory worker - was 7-8 hours. The point is that subsistence would be closer related to work conditions.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2024-06-23. Score: 1

Given that Marx interprets the dynamics of supply and demand for labor like any other good: the quantity of labor supplied increases as the wage increases.

-) Wages of the workforce are kept at the subsistence level and therefore workers are precluded from *saving*.

According to Marx's labor theory of value, the value of a commodity is given by the quantity of labor incorporated into it, measurable with the duration of time required to produce it. A good therefore has more value the greater the quantity of human labor incorporated into it. According to Marx, the working class is prevented from accessing the means of production and in order not to starve, the proletariat is forced to sell its labor under the conditions established by the other party. The capitalist counterpart would find itself in the historical condition of being able to exploit the subordinate class by producing and selling products at a price which incorporates labor that the capitalists would not have remunerated (*surplus value*).

-) As the repulsiveness of the work increases, the wage decreases.

As a consequence of the bargaining power of the capitalist and the fact that the more repulsive a job is, the more labor-based it is (anyone can do it without particoular skills) there is a job offer (*Reserve army of labor*) that accepts job offers at lower wages.


---

