How 'simple' is 'simple average labour'? Consider the following -- especially the part that I have capitalized: ------------------------------ "But the value of a commodity represents human labour pure and simple, the expenditure of human labour in general. And just as, in civil society, a general or a banker plays a great part but man as such plays a very mean part, so, here too, the same is true of human labour. It is the expenditure of simple labour-power, i.e. of the labour-power possessed in his bodily organism by every ordinary man, on the average, without being developed in any special way. *Simple average labour*, it is true, VARIES IN CHARACTER IN DIFFERENT COUNTRIES AND AT DIFFERENT CULTURAL EPOCHS, BUT IN ANY PARTICULAR SOCIETY IT IS GIVEN" (Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 1, Penguin ed., p. 135, capitalization added for emphasis). ----------------------------- One might infer from the above that for *STATIC ANALYSIS OF A GIVEN SOCIETY*, Marx is saying that it is legitimate to consider 'simple average labour' as GIVEN. This raises more questions than it answers, though: 1) Is 'simple average labour' then to be understood as SPECIFIC to a particular society? This would create problems for the understanding and comparison of value in DIFFERENT societies, i.e. INTERNATIONALLY. *Even if* we, however, understand a "particular society" in a global sense as the capitalist society in existence in the world at a specific moment in time, that does not resolve the next problem. But, before moving on, I will ask you: *Should we consider a "particular society" to be the society in existence within a given nation or the world-wide capitalist society in existence?* 2) Marx clearly thinks that it is legitimate for STATIC analysis to understand simple labour as given. Should we also consider simple labour as given for DYNAMIC ANALYSIS? It would seem that Marx's answer, because he recognizes that simple labour varies in character "at different cultural epochs", would be: "NO"! Or, at least, it would suggest that if one's dynamic analysis is of a sufficiently long period that it *extends into different cultural epochs*, then 'simple labour' can no longer be taken for granted as being given. It would seem, then, that 'simple labour' is no longer simple under capitalism over a long historical period. * What, then, can cause 'simple average labour' to change from one epoch of capitalism to another? Marx doesn't answer the above question so here are my preliminary thoughts: a) a generalization of certain types of knowledge by workers that capitalists, and society in general, come to expect as normal and average. The generalization of *literacy* might be thought of in this manner. This generalization of literacy has by no means proceeded rapidly or evenly internationally, but we can observe a substantial change from mid-19th to mid-20th Centuries. b) long-term changes in diet, nutrition, and health that affect not only life expectancy but also arguably the ability to create value. In general, one might for instance expect that if workers are healthier then they are more capable of working intensively. Conversely, some dietary changes that are *unhealthy* for workers might have the same consequence (e.g. increases in sugar and caffeine consumption). Thus, this might over the very long-term affect SNLT. Of course, this is a *very* uneven process internationally but physical capabilities (in some societies, including average height) have changed for workers over a *very* long period. c) Alongside the increase in women's employment in the mid- to late 20th Century (and the modern feminist movement), there have been cultural changes that have promoted exercise and strength- building for women. To the extent that this raises the average physical ability of workers over the long-term it could be seen as bringing about a change in simple average labour. d) The spread of certain basic technologies related to the health of the working class might be seen as changing simple average labour over the very long term. E.g. how many millions of workers in the 19th Century needed, but were unable to obtain (i.e. afford), eyeglasses to be able to see properly? Yet, now this has changed and it is normally the case world-wide that workers who need eyeglasses can be able to obtain them. Hasn't this then raised the magnitude of value that is created by this 'simple' labour since there has now been a change in the capabilities of the 'average' labourer? The above are *only examples* of how simple labour can change over the course of capitalist history. Other examples are thus possible. * Do you agree that the above examples could be seen as constituting a change in simple average labour? * Can you think of any other historical examples of how simple average labour has changed in capitalist history? * Does, this, then mean that in DYNAMIC ANALYSIS we can no longer take it for granted that simple labour is a given? * If simple labor is not taken to be given axiomatically in dynamic analysis, how should it then be included in dynamic models? E.g. should we views changes in simple labor as occurring DISCONTINUOUSLY OR CONTINUOUSLY? What are the implications of each in terms of how we comprehend simple labor changing historically? If we model these changes as happening discontinuously, should we consider using a "simple labor traverse" a la Hicks (_Capital and Time_) and Lowe (The Path of Economic Growth_)? * Would this then mean that we must reject the position that simple abstract labour creates the same amount of value in all countries and all periods of time? I believe that position (i.e. assumption and/or axiom) has been embodied in certain dynamic analyses by Marxists, e.g. by listmember Alan F. Thoughts? In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Apr 02 2001 - 09:57:30 EDT