discussion of value and slaveryRe Rakesh's [7090]:
> I cannot follow your latest argument about exactly why it is
only wage labor that can produce surplus value or as you put it:
it is the *specific production relations* that determine
whether the surplus product takes the *particular form*
of surplus value.
What is the specific production relation? And if it is the exchange
of labor power for a wage, why is this production relation rather
than an exchange relation? <
Sigh.
Social relations of production, within class societies, express
*class relations*.
Specific production relations are thus expressions of specific class
relations.
Specific production relations may require specific exchange relations.
Under capitalism production and exchange relations are necessarily
tied to each other: this is a consequence of how capital represents
a unity of the processes of capitalist production and circulation.
Let us then consider two distinct class relations, two specific social
relations of production:
Relation One: plantation owner confronts slaves in production
process
Relation Two: capitalist confronts wage-laborers in production
process.
There are similarities -- just as there are similarities in all modes
of production: in both relations, there is a ruling class which lives
off of the labor of a producing class; there is thus class exploitation
and surplus product production. These relations can also have
the common characteristic of commodity (note small "c")
production when commodities are also produced in Relation One.
Yet, to concentrate _only_ on the characteristic of commodity
(understood here to mean simply a product that was produced
with the intention of sale) production when discussing *surplus
value* is to ignore the _specific_ production relations under
which surplus value is created.
Let us consider how these two sets of social relations express
two *fundamentally* different forms of production relations *even
where and when the producers in both relations are engaged in
commodity production* --
Within *all* class societies, the exploiting class has certain common
goals within the production process:
a) where possible, increase the *intensity of labor* As we have
discussed previously the specific *way* in which the intensity of
labor can be increased is fundamentally and essentially different
under a plantation owner/slave relation than under a capitalist/
wage-labor relation;
b) where possible, increase the *working day* and/or *workweek*.
Under the plantation owner/slave system, direct control is required;
under the capitalist/wage-labor system, indirect control is
built in. Fear of physical punishment vs. fear of joining the
IRA represent very different forms of compulsion (and make
possible different forms of resistance);
c) where desirable, introduce *technical change* in means of
production. The *benefits* of technical change for the
exploiting class vary depending on which class they confront in
the labor process. E.g. technical change where there is wage-
labor is not only used to expel workers from the production
process but is also utilized to decrease the bargaining power
of workers and drive down wages and benefits ... and increase
the intensity of labor, etc.. This is very different for *why* a
plantation owner might under certain circumstances increase
technical change in means of production on the plantation.
d) where possible, drive down the customary *standard of
subsistence* (expressed in quantity and quality of means of
subsistence) for the producing class. Where there is a
plantation owner/slave relation, this is often possible simply by
-- through direct means -- decreasing the food, etc. consumed
by slaves. Of course, even the slave owner knows that there are
*natural limits* to this process (since slaves need a minimum
amount of food, etc. to remain as productive in terms of
output/slave/period of time.) The capitalist, however, can not
decrease the means of subsistence that wage-earners have
in the same way *and* [in addition to natural limits] there are
*social limits* that confront capitalists in terms of resistance of
workers to such efforts. While it is true that slaves can resist, the
*form of resistance* and the consequences of resistance vary very
much in the two types of relations.
a-d are not minor differences. They are specific expressions of
fundamentally and essentially different forms of production
relations. It is for this reason -- that surplus value is fundamentally
an expression of a *specific* social relation -- that makes it specific
to the particular class relation of capitalist/wage-laborer.
It is, of course, true that commodities and Commodities are
*superficially* the same in terms of physical characteristics and
generally price, but they are *essentially* different for the above reasons.
However, If one wants to view surplus value merely as "stuff" in a
physicalist sense then one will have a different perspective. If that
be the case, as surplus approach theorists suggest, then value
theory is unnecessary and "redundant".
In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Jun 02 2002 - 00:00:06 EDT