Re Rakesh's [5469]: > Jerry, the bundle of use values which workers > will have to consume will increase after an > intensification of labor. Lucky workers! Consider the political implications: The "bundle of use values", by which I think you mean the real wage, increases as a consequence of an intensification of labor. Thus, the standard of living of the working class increases as a result of speed-up. This gives rise to a new slogan: "Workers of the world divide and prosper!". (What kind of a message is that to send to workers on May 1? Speaking of which -- HAPPY MAY DAY EVERYONE!!! ) > How long it takes > workers to adjust that bundle is another > question. However long that > lag, the greater the extra surplus value > appropriated. But there's a happy ending because the customary standard of living of the working class must increase .... > But I am talking about an exceptional capitalist > here, one who coerces his workers to put in > hours of greater intensity than hours > which are average or customary in intensity at > any given point in the business cycle. It is not such an 'exceptional capitalist' who succeeds in coercing a higher than average intensity of labor out of her/his workers. Indeed, this would be the case for all of the cases where the actual intensity is greater than the customary average -- this might approach 50% of all capitalists. In any event, this is what all capitalists (most often through the effort of capitalism's overseers, i.e. managers) attempt to accomplish. Some are more successful than others, though. > A hour of socially necessary labor time is not > simply determined by clock time Agreed. I made that same point recently. > By this standard then the > exceptional capitalist has got his workers to put > in more hours by > intensifying the labor process. This may seem > counter-intuitive to > you since the more intensely exploited workers > seem to be working the > same 8 hour day as those putting in hours of > customary or average > intensity. It remains an 8 hour day. You might want to consider why Marx chose the word "absolute" for absolute surplus value. Absolute is not a word that allows for any fudging. > But this appearance is quite deceiving. Well ... it's not the same working day -- workers are working harder and faster. But, the *hours of labor* remain the same. > Sometimes eight hours of labor time can be > sixteen hours of > labor time (say if a capitalist has doubled the > intensity of labor), > and sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Some workers can perhaps, utilizing the same means of production, produce in 8 hours what other workers require 16 hours to produce. This means that the productivity of the former group is greater. I don't want to get into the cigar question. > And the capitalist has got those workers to put > in 25% more hours in terms of the standard of > what counts as an hour of average or > customary intensity. Suppose that those workers are currently working at an intensity that is 25% below the customary intensity of labor in that society. Now suppose an increase in intensity by 25% so that their intensity exactly equals the customary average. Has there not been an increase in the productivity of labor (as measured by output / worker hour) by 25%? Notice here that the hours of work remain constant. > You're just stuck with the fetishism of absolute > time. I'm not the one who referred to an expansion of surplus value by an extension of the working day (or workweek or working hrs / year) as ABSOLUTE surplus value. Again -- the word "absolute" doesn't allow for any wiggling room. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Jun 02 2001 - 00:00:05 EDT