[OPE-L:2671] Re: More on abstract labour

Paul Cockshott (wpc@cs.strath.ac.uk)
Thu, 18 Jul 1996 06:20:24 -0700 (PDT)

[ show plain text ]

Makoto:
> 2) If the polymorphous quality of human labour-power is the real
>foundation of the abstruct labour in all the forms of societies, then can
>we not see the same ground for homogenious equality of expended labour-time
>regardless of educational or training costs of skill which differentiate
>the values of labour-power for complex labour-power in a (capitalist)
>market economy? The traditionally separate problems on the abstract vs
>concrete useful labour on the one hand, and complex vs simple labour may
>thus be solved from the same deeper recognition of fundamentally equal
>quality of human labour-power. In my view, this should be a logical ground
>for Marxian eglitarianism beyond the formal market order.

Paul:
I agree with this. It is why I prefer the method of counting trained
labour in terms of basic labour plus an allowance for time acquiring
skill.

We have to be careful to distinguish between trained labour as a cost
to society - it requires time allocated to training - and the rewards
for trained labour - which should in principle be no different from those
of any other type of work. Since in a capitalist economy there is no
explicit labour time calculus, labour is represented by the wage, thus
the issues of its social cost and the rewards to individuals become
confused.
Paul Cockshott

wpc@cs.strath.ac.uk
http://www.cs.strath.ac.uk/CS/Biog/wpc/index.html