Re Rakesh's [5455]: > Gil, I think if we understand increased intensity > as a defacto extension of the working day, > (snip, JL) It's not a lengthening of the working day, though. I.e. with an increased intensity of labor, more output is being produced even when the length of the working day remains constant. > . In other words, I am asking > whether intensification is best understood in > terms of an increase in > absolute surplus value (lengthening of the > working day)rather than in > relative surplus value (reduction of necessary > labor time). Like an increase in surplus value due to technical change, an increase in the intensity of labor increases the productivity of labor. And, yes, an increase in the intensity of labor means that the proportion of the working day divided between necessary labor time and surplus labor time is altered. This is because with an increase in the intensity of labor the amount of time required for workers to create value equivalent to the value of labor power (assumed here to equal the wage -- although in practice wages fluctuate around the VLP) is reduced. It is in the *effects* of an increase in relative surplus value due to increasing intensity of labor or labor-saving technical change that they differ. I.e. the former (an increase in the intensity of labor) does not increase the organic composition of capital; the latter form does increase the OCC. Thus, they differ as well in terms of their affect on the rate of profit (the former is a counter-acting tendency; the latter is a mechanism through which the LTGRPD operates). In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed May 02 2001 - 00:00:06 EDT