A further thought in response to Rakesh's [5466]: > > But that it's unreasonable to assume that a > > capitalist could > > double the intensity of labor without increasing > > the real wage. What then is the effect of an increase of the intensity of labor on the real wage? If there is an increase in the intensity of labor it means that either a constant output can be able to be produced with less workers working less working hours or an increasing output can be able to be produced with a constant amount of workers working a constant amount of working hours. If output is constant, then the increase in the intensity of labor means that capitalists can produce that output with less workers working less working hours. Unless there is a reduction in the length of the working day and/or workweek (i.e. a reduction in absolute surplus value), then this will result in an expansion of the industrial reserve army. And when the relative surplus population expands, that tends to exert a downward pressure on (both money and real) wages. Now consider the other possibility: i.e. where an increase in the intensity of labor results in an increased production of output with the same amount of workers working the same amount of working hours. There is no mechanism that ensures in this case that real wages will go up and indeed there is no mechanism that requires in this case that the individual prices of the commodities that are produced with the intensified labor will go down. If that results in an over- production of commodities, then firms can respond by cutting back on production and thereby laying workers off. Result -- the same as above (i.e. an increased size of the IRA and a downward pressure on money and real wages). This might not be the case, though, if there is sufficient demand abroad. In that case, capitalists can export these commodities to other markets. In that case, the size of the IRA in the country or origin might not increase with an increase in the intensity of labor but there is no reason to suppose either that their real wages will increase. Indeed, after capital has been successful in increasing the intensity of labor then the bargaining power of workers tends to be lower (since they have just suffered a defeat) which, in turn, tends to also aid capitalist efforts to decrease money wages (and thereby hand the working class another defeat). Of course, an increase in the intensity of labor can also be an effect as well as a cause. E.g. suppose that the IRA grows for other reasons (e.g. labor-saving technical change; a cyclical crisis). As the IRA grows, that increases the bargaining power of capital vis-a-vis labor and makes it increasingly possible to succeed in increasing the intensity of labor. This is a well-known phenomenon for industrial workers who often experience an attempted speed-up immediately after a lay-off. Yet, if capital succeeds in further intensifying labor then they can (and often do) lay-off additional workers as a consequence. It goes without saying that these working class defeats do not necessarily raise money or real wages. It is for the above (and other) reasons, that workers often fiercely resist attempts by capital to increase the intensity of labor. For the same reason, capital always attempts to increase the intensity of labor wherever possible. A curious development is what happens after a lay-off where workers are represented by a Union and where lay-offs are based on seniority. One might think that workers will resist capital's attempt to increase the intensity of labor *more* under these circumstances since they should realize that if capital is successful then additional jobs will be lost. More often than not this doesn't happen. That is due in part to the additional *fear* of being laid-off. So they are more likely to "do as they are told" with this spread of fear which in turn can undermine the solidarity and militancy of the workers and the Union and then lead to more lay-offs. A more effective strategy, of course, would be to succeed in bringing about a decrease in the length of the workweek and/or working day with no loss in pay (and thereby a reduction in absolute surplus value) but this is by no means an easy fight in which the outcome is pre-determined. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed May 02 2001 - 00:00:06 EDT