Re Rakesh's [5466]: > But that it's unreasonable to assume that a > capitalist could > double the intensity of labor without increasing > the real wage. It's more unreasonable to expect capitalists after there has been an increase in the intensity of labor to tell workers "We've decided to increase your wage!" and/or "We've decided to lower the market price of our commodity so that you can afford to buy more of it now" [in any event, that last _possibility_ would only hold if the worksite(s) where there was an increase in the intensity of labor produced means of consumption destined for the working-class). > As I already said, only if the intensified hour > becomes the new norm > of an hour of average or customary labor time. As I've already explained, the intensity of labor that is assumed to be "normal" or "customary" that goes into SNLT can change over the very long-term. But, in the shorter-term the intensity of labor that is associated with SNLT is given, i.e. what is socially understood as normal or customary within a particular society during a particular historical epoch remains the same. YET, the intensity of labor DOES change in the short-run and I would also assert that there tend to be cyclical variations in the intensity of labor associated with the business cycle. > That > is, the capitalist who succeeds in intensifying the > labor process has > effectively elongated the working day of those in > his employ. 8 hours of labor-time, though, is still 8 hours of labor-time. And, more to the point, the working day has NOT BEEN ELONGATED. > No in your example what has happened is that > the wage has now fallen > below the value of labor power which should > now be greater in use > value terms with the intensification of labor. See above. > The necessary part of > the working day has actually increased (not fallen as in the case of > relative surplus value!) !!! Why are you trying to make what is basically a simple process complex? If, c.p., a capitalist gets her workers to work 25% harder and faster, then that means that during the same working hours, those workers are able to produce 25% more output in that period of time. That represents an increase in the productivity of labor -- no if, ands, or buts about it. Since it now takes less time for the workers to produce the monetary equivalent of their wage bundle, nlt goes down (by 25%) thereby causing slt to go up (by 25%). > I think it is very > misleading to understand intensification in terms > of relative surplus value. It is far more misleading to understand it in terms of absolute surplus value. (and, btw, I can't think of a single instance in which Marx wrote in _Capital_ that an increase in labor intensity represents an increase in absolute surplus value). So ... if you include an increase in the intensity of labor as a form of absolute surplus value then you are basically saying that there is absolute absolute surplus value and relative absolute surplus value. Relative absolute surplus value makes no sense whatsoever, imo. Either it's absolute or it's relative -- and it can't be absolutely absolute in the case of an increase in labor intensity because the length of the working day and the length of the workweek and the length of the working year (i.e. total working hours) remain constant. >but now the point remains that an hour more > intensified than that is > really more than an hour of socially necessary) > labor time; hence, >an intensification of the labor process *is* an > elongation of the working day. See above. It's not an elongation of the working day if the working day is not elongated. For the working day to be elongated, then the hours of work have to be increased. And they are not for this form of relative surplus value production. As for Kay's book, I see no point in looking at secondary sources at thir point. If you want to go to a source, try _Capital_: show me a single instance in which Marx refers to an increase in the intensity of surplus value as constituting an increase in the production of absolute surplus value. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed May 02 2001 - 00:00:06 EDT