Re Rakesh's [5470]: > If we assume that the more intense hour now > determines the norm, then > what we have in your case is a wage which is > below the value of labor > power. The 'norm' is the customary intensity of labor associated with a particular society during a particular historical period of time. It can thus be thought of as an 'average' labor intensity for that society. Thus, a change in the intensity of labor at one firm, market, or sector does not "determine" the norm but can over time lead to a change in the norm. Therefore, it is not the 'most intense' labor that determines the 'norm'. The norm can also be *lowered* by long-term reductions in labor intensity: thus, less intense labor can contribute to a change in the 'norm' just as a 'most intense' labor can contribute over time to a change in the norm. One must not forget when considering the intensity of labor that although capital seeks to constantly increase that intensity, labor constantly finds itself in struggle with capital over that issue and at a minimum seeks not to increase the intensity of labor -- of course, they can also struggle to decrease the intensity of labor. > Though with intensification a greater sum of > use values is needed to reproduce labor > power, Why? > you assume that there is no change > in the real wage. Not exactly. All I am saying is that a change in the intensity of labor does not _necessarily_ lead to a change in the real wage. > That is, you assume the wage now falls below > the value of labor power. No, an increase in the intensity of labor is consistent with the possibility that the wage equals the value of labor power. What has changed isn't necessarily the wage but nlt and slt. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Jun 02 2001 - 00:00:05 EDT