From: ajit sinha (sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM)
Date: Tue Sep 12 2006 - 07:01:20 EDT
Thanks Mike for sending me your Deutscher Prize lecture. I read it with great interest and think that there is a lot of food for thought in it. However, I think there is a serious theoretical problem at its core. Let me explain: Your idea revolves around your hypothesis: “What, then, determines the course of real wages? We can represent the course of real wages as a function of the relation of productivity to the degree of separation (q/X).” But you cannot work out the course of real wages without having a theory of real wages, i.e. a theory of real wages that tells you why real wages are so much at any given point of time. Let me explain further: Let us keep X constant, then your hypothesis argues that real wages, say w (t+1) = aw(t), where a represents the proportional change (a factor > or < than 1) in q from time t to (t+1). Now, the question would be: how w(t) was determined? According to the above hypothesis: w(t) must be equal to aw(t-1). And this way, you can go back to Adam. The point is that, if you argue that real wages change BECAUSE OF or DUE TO changes in the productivity of labor, then you are in effect making a claim that REAL WAGES ARE DETERMINED BY PRODUCTIVITY OF LABOR. Now this was not part of the theory of wages of classical economics, and Marx definitely did not want to make any such theoretical proposition. Without going into what I think Marx was doing—and all that is in CAPITAL, let me argue that your hypothesis: w = f(q/X) cannot yet give us a theory of wages as the dimension of q/X will not give you the dimension of real wages. I think the neoclassical economics was the first to develop a theory of wages that directly relates real wages to labor productivity, and your suggestion appears to me to be a slippery slope towards that theory. As a matter of fact, at one place, in a sort of Freudian slip, you yourself bring out the basic problem with your hypothesis. You argue, “The answer, simply, is that a rise in the X-factor is essential for the growth of relative surplus value because, if capital benefits immediately from productivity gains, the question would remain as to why the worker is not successful in capturing these benefits when he ‘measures his demands against the capitalist’s profit and demands a certain share of the surplus value created by him.’” But if workers could demand a share in the increase of the surplus value, why couldn’t they demand a share in the surplus value even before the rise in the productivity. The surplus value was produced in time t as well, so by the same logic why didn’t the workers demand a share of the surplus in the first place? Why were they content with the necessary labor in the first place? Is it because the necessary labor is determined by labor productivity? If not, then what is the basis of the above argument? You need a theory of wages that relates real wages to labor productivity to make your argument. But this is more neoclassical than Marx. There could be a Sraffian way out, but I will leave that out for the moment. But, of course, one can argue that the theory of wages in Marx is not sufficient or a good guide to understanding wage determination in modern capitalist economies and that we need to develop an alternative theory of wages. Now, I do think that you put this question on agenda and it is worth pondering about. But this has nothing to do with an interpretation of Marx’s theory of wages or his supposed book on wage-labor. I seriously doubt that Marx would have developed a productivity based theory of wages even if he wrote a book on wage-labor. I hope this was helpful. Cheers, ajit sinha __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Sep 30 2006 - 00:00:06 EDT