re Jerry's 5508 >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. Not if with a lengthening of the working day there are then more vacation days. Total non working hours could remain the same. > >> 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. Why isn't this enough to show that intensification is not necessarily a form of relative surplus value? > 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. Relatively independent is a fudge word. You are implicitly granting that there may be some connection here. > >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? Taylorization, the Bourdeux system. > >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: the point of not responding to my post is to evade the question which I put to you: does a depression of the wage below the value of labor power count as a form of relative surplus value? You said that you would not answer this question because you don't accept the premise that intensification necessarily entails such a depression, but then I reminded you that you didn't have to accept that premise since it doesn't appear in the question which I am putting to you. Your tactics of evasion are something to be marvelled at. > >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. And at the outset of the discussion you said that intensification is necessarily a form of relative 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). I then argued that only if some capitalists were able to intensify labor process without changing the norm what already counts as a hour of normal or customary intensity, then those capitalists had effectively lengthened the working day of those "in their employ." In this case intensification can be a form of absolute surplus value: Intensification is not necessarily a form of relative surplus value. > 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. But there is a likely connection. And it is more than likely that workers will experience immiseration, real physical deprivation if they are forced to expend more labor without a commensurate increase in consumption, rest or recuperation. You say this is not necessary but I argue that the needs are real. > >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. Yes you are right that I was wrong not to recognize that in some cases intensification could be a form of relative surplus value, but I see no reason why it will likely work out this way. So in the course of argument I did shift and came to see that intensification could be one of three things: relative surplus value; absolute surplus value; depression of the wage below the value of labor power. >My >position has remained the same throughout this >discussion. That's too bad! > 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. I don't think the necessary/contingent distinction is viable in studying causality in the social sciences. But I have yet to study Goodman and Quine. > 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 Ok. Rakesh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Jun 02 2001 - 00:00:06 EDT