Marx built his infamous labor theory of value on the premise that labor itself was a commodity. However, as Mises and other Austrians have noted, Marx failed
No, labor is not a commodity. I do see that the article now points out that the plumber owns his means of production. The question of whether or not the plumber is undercharging for his labor uas nothing to do with the question “is labor a commodity”. That plumber knows what he is doing, and cannot easily be replaced by another individual unless the replacement individual has a similar skill set. The plumber’s labor differs from the labor of his replacement. Labor is a specialty, not a commodity.
Karl Marx says that labor is a commodity. A special type of commodity in capitalism. That is not that author’s views, but Marx’s views, which he is debunking. It is clear some people have reading comprehension problems.
No, labor is not a commodity. I do see that the article now points out that the plumber owns his means of production. The question of whether or not the plumber is undercharging for his labor uas nothing to do with the question “is labor a commodity”. That plumber knows what he is doing, and cannot easily be replaced by another individual unless the replacement individual has a similar skill set. The plumber’s labor differs from the labor of his replacement. Labor is a specialty, not a commodity.
Karl Marx says that labor is a commodity. A special type of commodity in capitalism. That is not that author’s views, but Marx’s views, which he is debunking. It is clear some people have reading comprehension problems.
So you agree with me that the article has a good point in saying that labor is not a commodity?