From: Rakesh Bhandari (rakeshb@STANFORD.EDU)
Date: Fri Jun 06 2003 - 12:43:03 EDT
Michael, I am not getting your point here. >In short, just as in the case of changes in the standard of >necessity over time, differences in that standard for different >groups of workers are the result of class struggle--- the result of >capitalist and worker pressing in opposite directions. The >historical premises (insofar as they have affected the level of >social needs) may explain why particular workers do not press very >hard against capital; however, it is what workers accept in the >present rather than the historical premises that determines the >level of their necessary needs. Are you saying that the vast disparity in wages between ethnic groups and what you call races and the sexes and nationalities come over time to be explicable in terms of the variance of organized struggle? But what would explain the variance in organized struggle? This seems to me to veer on an overly subjective explanation for the inter-group variance in wages. Do certain groups have a cultural disposition for organized class struggle while others simply do not? And what would then explain that variance in cultural disposition? Do minorities, members of poor nations, and women not press very hard against capital? Or are you inferring the level of struggle from the wages which they actually receive? It would seem to me that your explanation for inter-group variance in wages is as subjective as the Keynesian explanation for the failure to expand the level of investment. Some groups of workers just don't struggle hard; capitalists lose animal spirits. In theorizing the dialectic between subject and object or agents and structure, the stick can be bent so far in the direction of the subject that the stick itself is broken. Yours, Rakesh > > >> Of course, the wage-labourers who face capital do not only >>live in families. They live in neighbourhoods and communities--- >>indeed, are concentrated by capital in particular neighbourhoods >>and cities, and they live in different nations (Engels, 1845: 344, >>394.). They are distinguished not only as men and women but also as >>members of different races, ethnic groups, etc. Once we acknowledge >>that ‘every kind of consumption... in one way or another produces >>human beings in some particular aspect,’ then it is not a great >>leap to extend this discussion of differently-produced >>wage-labourers to differences based on age, race, ethnicity, >>religion, nationality, historical circumstances and, indeed, on >>‘all human relations and functions, however and in whatever form >>they may appear.’ >> Marx did not take this step. He limited his comments to the >>matter immediately at hand--- the question of the value of >>labour-power. Thus, he acknowledged that ‘historical tradition and >>social habitude’ played an important part in generating different >>standards of necessity for different groups of workers (Marx, >>1865b: 145). Not only do necessary needs vary over time; they also >>vary among individuals and groups of workers at any given time. An >>obvious example was the situation of the Irish worker, for whom >>‘the most animal minimum of needs and subsistence appears to him as >>the sole object and purpose of his exchange with capital’ (Marx, >>1973: 285). Marx argued that their low necessary needs (compared to >>those of the English male worker) reflected the historical >>conditions under which Irish workers entered wage-labour, >>conditions which drove the standard of necessity to which they >>became accustomed to the level of physiological needs (Marx, 1977: >>854-870). >> Yet, differences in the value of labour-power reflect more >>than differences in ‘the social conditions in which people are >>placed and reared up.’ The latter are merely the ‘historical’ >>premises; and, on this basis, we could never explain changes in >>relative wages--- e.g., the equalisation (upward or downward) of >>the value of labour-power of differing groups of workers. Limited >>to historical premises as an explanation, ‘the more or less >>favourable conditions’ under which various groups of workers >>‘emerged from the state of serfdom’ would appear as original sin >>(Marx, 1865b: 145). >> In short, just as in the case of changes in the standard of >>necessity over time, differences in that standard for different >>groups of workers are the result of class struggle--- the result of >>capitalist and worker pressing in opposite directions. The >>historical premises (insofar as they have affected the level of >>social needs) may explain why particular workers do not press very >>hard against capital; however, it is what workers accept in the >>present rather than the historical premises that determines the >>level of their necessary needs. >> The principle, of course, goes beyond the case of Irish and >>English workers. It encompasses not only workers of differing >>ethnic and national background but also male and female workers. >>Unless, for example, we recognise the central place of class >>struggle in the determination of the value of labour-power, we are >>left with an explanation of male/female wage differentials that >>rests upon the assumption of lower subsistence requirements for >>women. This would be as absurd as to assume that Marx believed that >>the value of labour-power of Irish workers would always be below >>that of English workers. >> > > in solidarity, > Michael L > > > >--------------------- >Michael A. Lebowitz >Professor Emeritus >Economics Department >Simon Fraser University >Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6 >Office: Phone (604) 291-4669 > Fax (604) 291-5944 >Home: Phone (604) 689-9510 [NOTE CHANGE]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jun 09 2003 - 00:00:01 EDT