Thanks Ian. Of course, I never denied that the labour of slaves creates 'products' that can be exchanged. Perhaps in the case of commodity form without a value content, we are back in the realm of 'empty forms'?? Best Nicky At 12:33 24/04/02 +0930, you wrote: >i agree with Nicky's definition of the capital/wage labour relationship, >and agree with her that slaves are on a par with donkeys. But when she >asks, why should we not treat the labour of slaves on the same footing as >the efforts of donkeys (bith greater after a beating, etc), then i think >she has missed the point that slavery is an exploitative social system, >similar to though also dfferent from capitalism. The similarity is that >surplus labour is coercively extracted in both cases, the difference is >that the mechanism of coercion and its form of appearance differs. It makes >sense to speak of surplus value being produced by slaves who produce >commodities in that the surplus labour of the slaves takes the commodity >form. it will not, of course, make sense to measure the rate of >exploitation of slaves as s/v in value terms, since there is no 'v' in the >case of slavery. In patriarchal forms of slavery, and in the case of >southern US slavery in the case of domestic slaves also, surplus labour is >extracted but clearly the rpoduct does not take a commodity form and so >there is no surplus value. > >In earlier forms of slave production of commodities (on eg Roman >latifundia) there may be debate about how developed the commodity form is >and of whether it is useful to talk of surplus value rather than simply of >surplus labour, but in the case of US slavery, which was integrated into >the world market of capitalism, it is useful I think to take the surplus >labour of slaves that produce commodities as part of the total surplus >value of the US capitalist economy, >Cheers, >Ian > >>>> 4. Jerry has argued that I make it impossible to differentiate how >>>> the intensification of labor is accomplished in slavery from how it >>>> is accomplished in wage labor capitalism. Does Jerry think that >>>> employers had no rights to corporal punishment in capitalist >>>> factories in the 18th and 19th century?! At any rate, even if >>>> physical coercion is outlawed in modern capitalism, why does this >>>> mean that surplus value cannot be produced by slaves? >>>> >> >>It seems to me that Rakesh *entirely* misses the point. It is simply this. >> The capital-labour relation is constituted both in exchange (a wage >>payment to labour) and in production (a legally enforcible time commitment >>by labour). Most importantly, it is a purchase external to the capitalist >>class. It is external because it is a payment *to workers* and not to >>*other capitalists*. This alone sets labour apart from natural and >>produced inputs to production, and from slaves who are owned and >>distributed among capitals just as if they were donkeys or bullocks. If a >>donkey is beaten and forced to spend 10 hours a day pushing a handle on a >>well to crush olives into olive oil, do you believe it creates surplus >>value? If not, why not? >> >>I say not. Because donkeys like slaves are exchanged internally among >>capitals according to competitive laws of equal exchange (i.e. their price >>on markets). Exchange of slaves is no different to the distribution of >>other existing resources (given that property rights under slave systems >>extend to ownership of people and donkeys alike). By contrast, the money >>wage advanced by capital to labour is a payment external to the capitalist >>class and is not an equal exchange. i.e. the value of labour power (the >>real wage) differs in magnitude to the value that living labour valorises >>for capital during the course of the working day. The fact that workers >>sell only a capacity to labour (not labour) and share in the distribution >>of the product according to their success in class struggle (i.e. success >>in struggle over the terms and conditions of actual labour) alone gives the >>term 'rate of exploitation' its meaning. >> >>As I see it, Marx's demonstration that labour time in production is the >>*sole* source of an increase in value rests entirely on the fact that >>capital makes an initial external payment to labour in the form of wages. >>If you do not make this connection, you cannot exclude nature as a possible >>source of surplus value. The argument is *implicitly* made throughout the >>Introduction to the Grundrisse, which discusses the connection between >>production and distribution in different systems (including slavery) and >>the importance of beginning with concepts relevant to a historically >>specific mode of production. >> >>'These classes [capital and labour] in turn are an empty phrase if I am not >>familiar with the elements on which they rest. E.g. wage labour, money, >>price etc. These latter in turn presuppose exchange, division of labour, >>prices, etc. For example, capital is nothing without wage labour, without >>value, money, price, etc.' (Marx, 1857-58, p.100 [1973, Penguin ed]). >> >>Comradely >>Nicky >> >> >> >>----------------------- >>Nicola Taylor >>Faculty of Economics >>Murdoch University >>South Street >>Murdoch >>W.A. 6150 >>Australia >> >>Tel. 61 8 9385 1130 >>email: n.taylor@stu.murdoch.edu.au > > >Associate Professor Ian Hunt, >Director, Centre for Applied Philosophy, >Philosophy Dept, School of Humanities, >Flinders University of SA, >Humanities Building, >Bedford Park, SA, 5042, >Ph: (08) 8201 2054 Fax: (08) 8201 2784 > ----------------------- Nicola Taylor Faculty of Economics Murdoch University South Street Murdoch W.A. 6150 Australia Tel. 61 8 9385 1130 email: n.taylor@stu.murdoch.edu.au
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu May 02 2002 - 00:00:10 EDT