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