On Fri, 27 Apr 2001, you wrote: > Re Gil's [5439]: > > It is your conclusion that I disagree with, Gil. > You claim that the 'bottom line' is that labor > intensity would 'necessarily' show up in at least > 1 of Paul's 3 ways is not supported by what you > write below. Rather, what you suggest below > is that a change in labor intensity *might* > lead to a change in Paul's 3 ways. This is a > point I *agree* with, but it is a weaker claim > than your conclusion. (more comments below) On balance I think Gerry is right > > > In response to this comment by Paul C, > > >> The only three ways the rate of surplus value > > >> can change are > > >> 1. changes in the length of the working day > > >> 2. cheapening or dearing of the wage bundle > > > in > > >> labour terms > > >> 3. changing the wage bundle in real terms > > Jerry writes > > >These are not the 'only' ways in which the > > >rate of surplus value can change: the rate of > > >surplus value will also change when there is > > >a change in the intensity of labor. > > But changing the intensity of labor leads directly > to effect (2) above > by > > altering the socially necessary labor time > > embodied in the wage bundle. > > I agree with John E's comment in [5442] here. > Also, I think that while the standard for what > is 'socially necessary' in SNLT can change due > to a long-run change in what the 'average amount > of exertion and the usual degree of intensity' is > (see Vol 1, Penguin ed., p. 303), short-run > variations in labor intensity don't normally > change SNLT. I.e. over a long historical period > labor intensity can lead to a change in SNLT, > by virtue of changing culture and customs > (including class struggle), in regard to what is > the 'average' exertion and the 'usual' degree > of labor intensity customary in that (particular) > society. Over a shorter period of time, > variations in labor intensity that don't > (ordinarily) lead to changes in what is socially > understood to be SNLT. (Allin, Rieu and I > discussed this issue last month.) > > > It > > might also indirectly lead to effect (3) by changing the average caloric > > requirements of workers, > > I agree that this _might_ be a consequence > but I also believe that it is not a _necessary_ > consequence. > > Also, while there is a connection between > labor intensity and food requirements, this has > to be understood in terms of the customary > food requirements of the working class in > particular societies and historical periods rather > than in a human physiological sense. From a > purely physiological sense, workers are capable > of much greater labor intensity with diminished > food intake than is customary (this was a > point well understood and put into practice > by the SS at Nazi labor and death camps.) > > > or effect (1) by making it possible to extend the > > working day (because workers are expending > > *less* effort per hour) or > > making it necessary to reduce the working day > > (because workers are > > expending so much extra effort per hour that > > they're too exhausted to > > perform well in the marginal hours). > > Again -- what is possible is not necessary. > A change in the length of the working day must > be seen in terms of class struggles whose > outcome in this regard is not pre-determined. > > On your last point, I agree that there is the > possibility than an increase in labor intensity can > lead under certain circumstances to loss of > efficiency and a decline in productivity (as well > as a rise in industrial accidents and deaths). > > >Bottom line, changes in labor > > intensity would necessarily show up in at least > > 1 of Paul's 3. > > As I explained above, it is your 'bottom line' > that I disagree with. > > In solidarity, Jerry -- Paul Cockshott, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, Scotland 0141 330 3125 mobile:07946 476966 paul@cockshott.com http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/people/personal/wpc/ http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/index.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed May 02 2001 - 00:00:06 EDT