From: gerald_a_levy (gerald_a_levy@msn.com)
Date: Tue Jan 14 2003 - 09:37:54 EST
Re Paul A's [8333]: > * There are two quite distinct issues under the "reduction" from > complex to simple labor: a question of how to measure the value of > complex labor power relative to simple (expressed as relative wages), > and a question of whether capitalist development actually simplifies > complex labor by deskilling. On the former, presumably we can rely on > the relative amounts of "socially necessary labor time involved in > producing" the relevant capabilities. Like simple labor, I would say that what constitutes SNLT varies spatially and temporally. This means that instead of there being one uniform standard for SNLT, there are many. SNLT is a "moving target". > On the latter, my view is, > obviously, not. (Just so I know where we're up to in this discussion: > do you really think deskilling is the dominant tendency?) I think that 'deskilling' and 'upgrading' are both long-term historic processes. Which of those tendencies is the dominant one may vary conjecturally (and perhaps regionally). > * Globally, I think we might agree that international competition > tends over the longer term to bring wages into closer alignment. As > imperialism reaches into less-developed regions to exploit low wages, > wages do tend to rise relative to advanced countries -- as we saw > with the "Asian tigers". The demands of capitalist industrialization > lead these countries to build their education system, upgrading the > country-specific standards of simple labor and the supply of complex > labor. (As you can see, my paleo- proclivities have led me close to > Bill Warren's position!) OK, I'll bite. How is your position on imperialism different from Warren's? Do you see imperialism as being responsible for the upgrading of workers skills internationally? > The state and workers' movements can help or > hinder in this upgrading, and give it the skill-formation > institutions their specific shape. Agreed. > Are we moving forward in this? If moving forward means in part that we are deepening our discussion by extending it into other areas and challenging our preconceptions, then I think the answer is yes. Solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jan 15 2003 - 00:00:01 EST