{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.019597457627118644, 'fraction_numerical': 0.010063559322033898, 'mean_word_length': 5.869090909090909, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The value of labor: the science of commodification in Hungary, 1920–1956

Following on the path of questioning that Lampland laid out in The Object of Labor (1995), The Value of Labor delves deeper into the technopolitical history of the commodification of agrarian labour in Hungary. Previously, Lampland has maintained that the individualized concepts of time, money, and labour imposed by socialist collectivization bore continuity with pre‐socialist agrarian modernization, and were instrumental to the transition to capitalism. In The Value of Labor, she follows expert and policy debates in 1930s work science, and points out their continuities with the institutionalization of the work unit in the Stalinist phase of collectivization. Such continuities contradict the Cold War concept of Stalinist modernization as Soviet models imposed from scratch. Targeting debates in the fields of Science and Technology Studies (STS), history of economics, and Cold War history, Lampland draws three interconnected conclusions: 1) an emphasis on the role of markets in determining the value of labour obscures the historical construction of the knowledge, policy, and material infrastructures that perform its commodification; 2) performativity of economics should also be understood through the history of the material infrastructures of scientific intervention; and 3) the Cold War periodization that separates socialist and capitalist modernization does not stand in face of the historical continuity between pre‐socialist and socialist infrastructures of labour commodification. While Lampland’s conclusions primarily address debates within the above fields, her findings are interesting and relevant contributions to other fields too, where many of her conclusions are shared. In the field of debate on the interconnected historical development of capitalism, especially in the tradition