[OPE-L:5508] Re: Re: Re: More Intense Labor

From: Gerald_A_Levy (Gerald_A_Levy@email.msn.com)
Date: Mon May 07 2001 - 08:12:13 EDT


Re [5505]:

> Is there a necessary connection between any
> two things?

Yes. E.g. an increase in absolute surplus value
will of necessity decrease the average amount of
non-working hours for those members of the 
working class who are productive of surplus
value.

> What do you mean by necessary?

In this context, I mean a logical cause-and-effect
relationship. _All_ that you have shown (which
I never disagreed with) is that an increase in the
intensity of labor _might_ then lead to an
increase in the VLP and then the depression of
wages below the VLP.  This does not, though,
establish a _necessary_ cause-and-effect
relationship between these two events if they
happen at the same time.  This is because
struggles to change the intensity of labor are
relatively independent of struggles that lead
to changes in the VLP and/or the wage.

As a historical footnote: I can't think of a single
historical instance in which it can be shown that
increases in the intensity of labor led directly to
increases in the VLP.  Can anyone else think
of such an instance?

As for the rest of your post, you appear to have
repeated arguments made in earlier posts.
Rather than also just repeat arguments I have
advanced elsewhere, let me instead summarize
the discussion:

At the outset of the discussion you claimed that
an increase in the intensity of surplus value
should be seen as an increase in absolute surplus
value. I claimed that an increase in the intensity
of labor to the extent that there was no increase
in working hours and that it results in an increase
in output/working hour (i.e. productivity) should
be seen as a form of increasing relative surplus
value (although, not the predominant form once
there has been the real subsumption of labor
under capital).   You claimed, in contrast, that
it was highly 'misleading' to refer to an increase
in the intensity of labor as an increase in
relative surplus value and that an increase in
labor intensity would depress wages below the
VLP (by leading to an increase in the VLP
while maintaining constant money wages) and
hence further 'immizerization' of the working
class. I countered by explaining that there is no
necessary relation between changes in the
intensity of labor and changes in the VLP.

In the course of the discussion your position
shifted _from_ arguing that an increase in the
intensity of labor should be thought of as an
increase in absolute surplus value _to_  arguing
that such an increase could (depending on the
circumstances) be thought of as representing
_either_ an increase in absolute surplus value and
a depression of wages below the VLP _or_
an increase in relative surplus value. My
position has remained the same throughout this
discussion. I argue that one must separate out
necessary consequences from contingent
possibilities and that a change in the VLP due
to a change in labor intensity is the latter. You
disagree, I guess. So that's where we're at.
Perhaps the best thing to do at this point is to
pause and listen for others on OPE-L to
advance fresh arguments into this exchange.

In solidarity, Jerry



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Jun 02 2001 - 00:00:06 EDT