“Up till now violence, war, pillage, murder and robbery, etc., have been accepted as the driving force of history. Here we must limit ourselves to the chief points and take therefore, only the most striking example-the destruction of old civilization by a barbarous people and the resulting formation of an entirely new organization of society.” (Marx 151-152)
At this part of the reading Marx is speaking about the division of labor and the separation of town and country. He is making the point that labor results in ownership and the value of the things you are able to own is based off of the level of labor you are at. This statement on violence follows the discussion of ownership and implies that the want and need for higher levels of ownership have resorted in violence and war in the past. Many events or trends in history are noted because they were a large enough issue that they are considered an effective part history that can be learned from. Marx is saying that the countries history has been guided by negative issues, that typically came about because of the want for more valuable ownership of some type of property within society. Throughout his article, Marx makes it clear that without being the owner of some type of property that is valuable to the society, you cannot be considered a contributing member of that society, and even further a man. This is what pushes people to work to having something of their own, the need to be a man and a citizen.
Although the core driving force is having a negative impact on history, it is vital that the positive aspects of those issues are the key points that are looked upon to grow and build a substantial base for the new organization for the civilization. Violence is necessary for a society to grow and learn from their mistakes, as well as constantly build upon the security and procedures of that society. The lack of violence would mean there was a lack of drive in a civilization, so Marx is ultimately making the point that violence and war are necessary for the growth of a society.
In Colliers poem, The Woman’s Labour, she argues for the fact that a woman’s work is never done. Although it’s written around the 17th century, many of the ideas revolving around a woman and working can relate to today’s time period. Jonathan Swift writes a poem around the same time titled, “The Ladies Dressing Room”, that consist of pointing out all of the unseen flaws that women have in an effort to reach perfection. I think if these two authors had a conversation on the labour issue it would consist of Collier pointing out the fact that all women do not have the resources to live a life of luxury, even when it comes to their appearance. Some, if not most, women’s daily lives consist of working just to get food to stay alive. So for Swift to create the image that all women are secretly using filthy methods to create a fake perception of beauty is inaccurate. No, he is not directly scrutinizing the lives of women working in the fields, however, it can be looked at from both points of view. For Collier, work is what makes a woman more valuable, so there is not a need for them to manage their outer appearance as much. But for Swift that is all that woman care about when they are attempting to be attractive for the opposite sex. However, there should be a balance in both situations since being happy with their outer appearance is something that most women are concerned with. Swift, might argue for the fact that women’s lives are not truly consumed with work, and if they spent less time primping for their day, they may complete some of their daily chores in a more timely fashion. Even if they are not using pounds of makeup, or trying on endless amounts of clothes, they are still spending unnecessary minutes being concerned about an image that for most is not the real them whatsoever. In the end, I do not think Collier and Swift would agree on this topic, Collier believing that women deserve to have a moment of feeling their best through their tiresome work days, even if it really is not their job to look pretty. And Swifts opinion being that their workdays would not be so bad if they were not concerned with their appearance since it ultimately doesn’t really have anything to do with their labor.
Hey guys, sorry that I’m posting this so late! I hope that you’ll be able to take a look at it before our conference tomorrow. It is a very very rough draft so I hope that you can give me some useful feedback! Thanks!
Major Paper 2 Rough Draft Docx
Major Paper 2 Doc
“Up till now violence, war, pillage, murder and robbery, etc., have been accepted as the driving force of history. Here we must limit ourselves to the chief points and take therefore, only the most striking example-the destruction of old civilization by a barbarous people and the resulting formation of an entirely new organization of society.” (Marx 151-152)
At this part of the reading Marx is speaking about the division of labor and the separation of town and country. He is making the point that labor results in ownership and the value of the things you are able to own is based off of the level of labor you are at. This statement on violence follows the discussion of ownership and implies that the want and need for higher levels of ownership have resorted in violence and war in the past. Many events or trends in history are noted because they were a large enough issue that they are considered an effective part history that can be learned from. Marx is saying that the countries history has been guided by negative issues, that typically came about because of the want for more valuable ownership of some type of property within society.
Although the core driving force is having a negative impact on history, it is vital that the positive aspects of those issues are the key points that are looked upon to grow and build a substantial base for the new organization for the civilization. Violence is necessary for a society to grow and learn from their mistakes, as well as constantly build upon the security and procedures of that society. The lack of violence would mean there was a lack of drive in a civilization, so Marx is ultimately making the point that violence and war are necessary for the growth of a society.
I have decided to answer the question “what makes labor value difficult to establish?” for Major paper one. I think this question has a lot of depth to it and is very broad so the answer to it does not have to be a cliché response. I would like to take on the point of view that labor value is difficult to establish because there are many aspects of labor that are done in different fashions, even if it’s the same task. There is some labor that can be completed by humans, and then there is some that machines are able to do. The difficulty level fluctuates depending on who is performing the task, thus making the value of the work increase or decrease as well.
I am going to use Collier as well as Duck together to argue this point; I feel that although they have opposing arguments, they together can support my view on labor as a whole. In addition to those two readings, I would like to incorporate the reading “Money” by Stein, because the value of money, as well as the value of the work has to be established to truly understand the value of the labor that is being done. So the points that I want to argue are… 1) That labor value is difficult to establish because the difficulty labor of that work changes depending on who is performing the task, whether it be man, woman, machine, or even animals, making the value change. And 2) I would also like to argue that the value of the money, or item of value being used to pay for that labor makes it difficult to determine the value of labor.
I found it interesting that in both Duck as well as Colliers works, the idea of labor was segregated into male and female work. The argument of who worked harder was based on traditional roles that men and women typically played in that time. So my question is, if the roles were reversed, and the man was the one staying up late and waking up early, doing multiple little tasks, then would he be seen as the harder worker? If the woman was out working in the fields, only working from dusk till dawn verses through the night at times too, would she be seen as having an easier job?
My interpretation of these two pieces is that the work is being put into categories, male and female tasks, and this is making it seem to be an obvious choice of who is the harder worker. I think if the genders were to switch roles the peoples opinions would most likely switch as well. Not because their opinion of which job is more challenging has changed, but because there will always be something in society that cause the woman to be favored when it comes to who has the harder job. If it is physical labor then there is the argument that the woman is not as strong as the man, and the physical exertion on her body can be more fatiguing than it would be for a man. And then if it is lighter work, just more of it, it will be said that the woman is busier and has so many other things to do, even if a man has to do the same exact thing. This is based on biased opinions that can only be affected by individuals who have experienced similar forms of both tasks, and can truly say who may have the more tedious job.
In Colliers poem, The Woman’s Labour, she argues for the fact that a woman’s work is never done. Although it’s written around the 17th century, many of the ideas revolving around a woman and working can relate to today’s time period. Jonathan Swift writes a poem around the same time titled, “The Ladies Dressing Room”, that consist of pointing out all of the unseen flaws that women have in an effort to reach perfection. I think if these two authors had a conversation on the labour issue it would consist of Collier pointing out the fact that all women do not have the resources to live a life of luxury, even when it comes to their appearance. Some, if not most, women’s daily lives consist of working just to get food to stay alive. So for Swift to create the image that all women are secretly using filthy methods to create a fake perception of beauty is inaccurate. Swift on the other hand, might argue for the fact that women’s lives are not truly consumed with work, and if they spent less time primping for their day, they may complete some of their daily chores in a more timely fashion. Even if they are not using pounds of makeup, or trying on endless amounts of clothes, they are still spending unnecessary minutes being concerned about an image that for most is not the real them whatsoever. In the end, I do not think Collier and Swift would agree on this topic, Collier believing that women deserve to have a moment of feeling their best through their tiresome work days. And Swifts opinion being that their work days would not be so bad if they were not concerned with their appearance.
Hello everyone,
My name is Chelsea Hewitt and I am a Junior here at the University of Washington. I enjoy learning, and I am really excited to be a part of this class. My majors are Medical Anthropology and Sociology, and I am considering a triple major in Dance. I am definitely minoring in it, but I have not decided if I’m confident enough to take the next step and make it a major. I am taking this course to fulfill my W credit, as well as explore other areas of writing and see how I enjoy it. I prefer to write on real life issues and topics verses novels so I am very excited about how this course is set up.
When it comes to the question what is money, in my opinion money is not just money. Money is identity, property, character, strength; it causes personal problems as well as public issues. If money was just money then we should be able to just make more of it and allow it to be distributed carelessly. It wouldn’t have different values because it would just be money and the amount wouldn’t really matter in my opinion. But since it’s not “just” money we get in feuds over it which lead to wars. We debate over everything that has a value because everyone wants to get their “moneys” worth. For these reasons I do not believe money is just money.
The economy is the wealth or resources that a country or organization has in its possession. It can be money, but it can also be other materials that are of value to that country at that time, things that are necessary for the country and the people in it to function. The economy can fluctuate depending on the effects that certain events have on it, and these effects can be positive or negative.
Recent Comments