Re Rakesh's [5485]: > I am arguing that intensification is not > necessarily a form of relative surplus value: > it can in some cases represent a lengthening > of the working day; in other cases it can > allow for the wage to be depressed below the > value of labor power; and it can indeed in yet > other cases be a form of relative surplus > value. This represents a significant change in position since you now recognize that a change in labor intensity 'can' be a form of relative surplus value. Good. Yet, I am unclear why your position has changed .... > But you haven't understood the implications of > your own point then. (snip, JL) > this is non responsive. Once you agree that an > hour is not any clock > hour but an clock hour of average or > customary intensity, then an > hour of more intensified labor is simply more > than an hour. This follows from what you have > written. (snip, JL) > Again you have failed to think through the > implications of your own argument. (snip, JL) > non responsive. > But you are the one trying to wiggle out from > the consequences of your repudiation of clock > time. Rakesh -- I think I understand the implications of what I have been suggesting. I'm not sure, though, if you understand the implications of your perspective. I have argued that what constitutes socially necessary labor time in determining value is not 'clock time'. I discussed the meaning of 'socially necessary labor time', indeed, in the context of a number of threads last month. One issue I discussed is how a change in the intensity of labor can change what constitutes SNLT and therefore what goes into the determination of value. Your position seems to be, if I understand you correctly, that changes in the intensity of labor are ongoing and continuous and that consequently changes in SNLT and what is value are ongoing and continuous. I, of course, agree that there are often wide variations in the intensity of labor within any society and in the context of a particular period of history. I also agree that there are continuous and ongoing struggles in many thousands of worksites between capital and labor over the intensity of labor every day. Thus, it seems that our difference amounts to the following: while I agree that there are ongoing and continuous struggles over the intensity of labor, I also think that there is a 'average' or 'customary' standard of intensity within each particular society that is taken to be 'given' in the short-run and only changes infrequently over the longer-run. In making this distinction, I am asserting that changes in 'customs' regarding the intensity of labor generally take a significant amount of time. In a similar vein, I would say that the 'moral' and 'cultural' components of the wage also take time for them to be accepted as the new norm. You seem to assert, though, that because labor intensity is on-going changes in SNLT and therefore value are also ongoing. Indeed, I think that an instantaneous change in SNLT is not only possible but likely from your perspective. Perhaps this difference in perspective can be related to our previous discussion about continuous and discontinuous changes in dynamic analysis. If dynamic analysis, for instance, requires from your perspective continuous changes in labor intensity which continuously changes what constitutes SNLT and value, I think a conclusion might be that when Marx held that the "customary" labor intensity within a particular society and during a particular point in time can be taken as given that he was advancing a non-dynamic (or at best, quasi-dynamic) analysis that indeed seems to directly violate your (and Steve's) understanding of dynamics. I hold that such an assumption of a 'given' average intensity of labor customary to a particular society is entirely consistent with dynamic analysis but would have to be modeled differently -- for example with occasional 'traverses' caused when there are 'jumps' in labor intensity that cause the customary labor intensity of workers and thus SNLT to change. Because this entails a change in cultural standards I think this later method is more reasonable as a means towards understanding the real social and economic processes at work here. So, I agree that SNLT can not be measured universally and simply by 'clock time'. Yet, I disagree that this requires that the customary labor intensity that goes into the constitution of SNLT can instantaneously change or normally changes in the short-run (e.g. within a period). In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Jun 02 2001 - 00:00:06 EDT