re Jerry's 5502 >Re Rakesh's [5501]: > >> Fine. There is no purely physiological need; what > appears to be a >physical need for rest and >> recuperation cannot be separated strictly >> speaking from socially and culturally determined > needs. The point >reamains that whatever the >> working class needs for rest and rucuperation >> -- as physiologically/culturally/socially >> determined-- is threatened by an intensification >> of labor. The working class will now >> need" (though not in a strict physiological sense >> as you correctly insist) more time for rest and >> recuperation. > >The struggle over intensification of labor rarely >leads _directly_ to struggles over increased non-working time. There is no >_necessary_ relation >between these struggles. Is there a necessary connection between any two things? What do you mean by necessary? > >Indeed, it is more frequently the case that workers >internationally who work more intensively _also_ >have less time off from work (i.e. they tend to work more hours/day; >days/week; weeks/yr). Doesn't matter. These workers also have a need for some rest, recuperation and/or consumption after a given expenditure of labor. If that expenditure is made more intense without a commensurate increase in rest, recuperation and/or consumption, the wage will fall below the value of labor power; the workers will experience immiseration. >This is because the same relative strength of the >capitalist class vis-a-vis the working class that >allows them to be able to increase the one also >allows them to more easily increase the other. If some set of workers is less able to force adjustments on the capitalist class after intensification, this only means that they are more likely to suffer a depression of the wage below the value of labor power, i.e., suffer immiseration. >This tends to be particularly the case in economies >in which the relative size of the industrial reserve >army is significantly greater than the international average. This also, >btw, means that these >capitalists can expect less working-class resistance >to attempts by capitalists to increase relative >surplus value through labor-saying technical >change. Again I don't see how this speaks in favor of your thesis that intensification is ipso facto a form of relative surplus value. > >> And in this case we don't have a clear case of >> relative surplus value. > >Rakesh -- even with labor-saving technical change >workers can experience a decline in wages >below the value of labor power. Simply because >the two events can happen at the same time >doesn't establish a causal relation. Non responsive. The question you are not answering is this: does the extra surplus value which comes from depressing the wage below the value of labor power count as relative surplus value? > >Indeed, to the extent that increasing relative >surplus value by increasing labor-power saving >technical change increases the relative strength >of capital, it also can help capital to decrease >wages below the value of labour power, >increase labor productivity further by >increasing the intensity of labor, _and_ increase >absolute surplus value. But in his analysis of the production of relative surplus value through technical change, Marx does not allow the wage to fall below the value of labor power. And here you suggest yourself that the depression of the wage below the value of labor power is an additional source of surplus value over and above relative surplus value. > >*All that need be shown is that an increase in >the intensification of labor does not necessarily >lead to a change in the VLP and/or a depression >of wages below the VLP to refute your >argument*. No, the burden is the exact opposite. Your thesis that intensification is *necessarily* a form of relative surplus value is jeopardized if by intensification the extra surplus value which derives thereform is caused in some cases by the wage falling below the value of labor power as it is itself modified upward by intensification. > >Carefully consider the following: > >-- Suppose that there has been an increase in >relative surplus value due to labor-saving technical >change. ok > >-- Can there _then_ be a change in the VLP or >an *increase or depression* of wages in relation >to the VLP? yes but marx's point is that additional surplus value can be produced without the wage falling below the value of labor power and without an elongation of the working day. In the case of intensification--unlike the examples of relative surplus value which Marx gives--it is possible that the extra surplus value from intensification is entirely a result of the depression of the wage below the value of labor power. In fact my impression is that this what most often happens. > > Answer to above: Of course. Either is possible. >Neither consequence is _necessary_. Whether >the VLP and wages relative to VLP changes >depends on *other* variables. You have the burden reversed: if you want to show that intensification is necessarily a form of relative surplus value, you have to show that it is not necessary that the value of labor power is not changed by intensification. And this you have not done. It is quite possible--in fact likely--that intensification changes the value of labor power while as a result of the wage falling below this new value of labor power, the capitalists enjoy extra surplus value just as they do in the cases of relative surplus value Marx analyzes. From the perspective of the capitalists--which is the point of view you are assuming--the extra surplus value from the depression of the wage below the value of labor power and th extra surplus value from the reduction of necessary labor time allowed by labor saving technical change seems to be the same. But they are not the same from the point of the view of the working class. > >The same is true for what can happen _after_ >there has been an increase in the intensity of >work. Thus, *since you have already recognized >how an increase in the intensity of work can be >understood as an increase in relative surplus >value*, it can be such if say after intensity doubles the value of labor power only increases by one and a half, but I see no reason why the numbers would work out this way. *Nor have you provided any reason why they must work out this way.* >we must comprehend an increase in the >intensity of work as a form of relative surplus >value. No we *must* not do any such thing. What we shouldn't do is consider intensification to necessarily be a form of relative surplus value. >All of the other results that you mention >are _only_ possibilities and are not necessary >consequences of an increase in the intensity of >labor. You may not consider it necessary that after a more intense expenditure of labor workers don't need more rest, recuperation or consumption, but workers do need exactly that. And they may not be able to get what they need. The privation thereby suffered is in fact quite real. > >> So does the extra surplus value which derives >> om depressing the wage below the value of >> labor power count as relative surplus value? > >I don't accept your premise that increasing the >intensity of labor represents a decrease in wages >below the VLP. See above. You don't have to accept that premise to answer the question in which said premise does not appear! Yours, Rakesh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Jun 02 2001 - 00:00:06 EDT