Value of labour

Press, 3 February 1984, Page 16

Value of labour

Sir, — Is Keith Wignail suggesting that a person should be paid on a floating scale for every task throughout his/her waking hours? Whether labourer or professional, onqfis only supposed to work an eight-hour day. Own time activity

should have no bearing on occupation, profession, wage or salary; but be undertaken with love and care for pleasure, or to satisfy one’s particular opinion of what is required to keep property, possessions, and conditions of living to the standard one desires. So why should anyone be paid for mowing his or her lawn? And who does Mr Keith Wignail propose should foot the bill? Yours, etc., H. TURNER. January 31, 1984.

Sir, — I am glad to hear that Keith Wignail does not attempt to put a value on people. Unfortunately that is precisely what society as a whole does. The job which one does is inextricably linked with the person one is. As we move into a completely different type of society it is imperative that this conjunction is no longer made. We have witnessed over the years many men, who on retirement become disorientated, or even die prematurely because of loss of identity through loss of jobs. People must be helped to work through the thicket of work-related value to a situation where we love and enjoy each other for what we are, not for what we do, or what we possess. — Yours, etc., JILL WILCOX. January 31, 1984.

Sir, — Capitalists and their accountants value other people’s labour only as a cost in production. To humane beings in the wider society it has many values — as occupation, livelihood, matter for pride or prestige, source of pleasure, fitness, friendship, interest. If we consider value from society’s viewpoint, the capitalist and the private accountant are harmful and unnecessary. Why should university graduates be paid three times the basic wage for enjoying the privilege, fun, stimulation and learning of university? A reasonable, meanstested bursary would be more equitable. As S. Bernstein (January 30) said, all people are of equal worth, have roughly equal needs and society needs all work done, even if only to employ everybody, so all should be paid according to need. — Yours, etc.,

SUSAN TAYLOR. January 31, 1984.

Sir,—Keith Wignall’s statement that he would never attempt to put a value on people is welcome if he means cash value as individuals. However, capitalist society is not merely the sum of its individuals. It is a stage of human development where the economic position of an individual determines his position as part of a class. Whether he accepts, resents, or tries to ignore this fact of life does not stop its reality. This reality includes the creation of surplus value by the economic class which does the actual work of production. In a previous letter (December 17, 1983) Keith Wignail gives commodity status to this actual work, placing its price, which is the smallest part of its value, at the mercy of market forces. Does he not see . that, in seeming to accept this [status as permanently desirable, he is actually putting a

cash value on people?—Yours, etc., R. TATE. January 31, 1984.

Sir,—Anyone accepting the ideas of S. Bernstein (January 30) could do themselves severe spiritual injury. S. Bernstein argues that all humans are of equal worth and that all work done is of equal value so all people should be paid equally. Human beings are equal only in that they are all human beings, entitled to equal rights under the law, liberty and the right to the pursuit of happiness. Unless S. Bernstein feels the equal of both Jesus Christ and Adolf Hitler for example, that is where the equality ends. Every person is a unique spark of life with his or her own gifts, faults and aspirations. The more different, independent and integrated we are, the more alive we are. The more similar we are in our thoughts, actions, and financial rewards, the

closer we approach that ultimate equaliser, death. The equal worth ot man and equal value of work dogmas are morbid Marxist doctrines that have no place guiding a healthy free society.—Yours, etc., T. R. LOUDON. January 30, 1984.

[This correspondence is now closed.—Editor.]