Re: The 'cultural and moral' component (was Meillassoux on population and wages)

From: Francisco Paulo Cipolla (cipolla@SOCIAIS.UFPR.BR)
Date: Mon Jun 09 2003 - 16:16:05 EDT


What determines who gets the complementary wage is the one who gets into
the merket in gender order ( women) or age order (children). Because of
gender determination even if they get there first (or are single
mothers) they would get a complementary wage.
Paulo

"michael a. lebowitz" wrote:

>  Hi Paolo (and anyone else interested),
> Do not buy the first edition of Beyond CAPITAL (assuming Amazon could
> find it)! The new, vastly improved edition (expanded 25%) is due out
> this month from Palgrave Macmillan, and there is a paperback edition
> coming out simultaneously with the hardback. You can check the price
> on their website. I'll post the new preface separately so people who
> have seen the first edition will get a sense of changes.
> As for your specific points, many are addressed directly in the book:
>
>  (1) 'If wages are supposed to allow for the reproduction of labor
> power as a class of individuals', WHY are they supposed to do so?
> Because capital wants new workers 20 years later? We need to look
> closely at the residue of classical economics in Marx here. After all,
> when you think of the role in Marx's theory of both the latent reserve
> army and that created by the increase in the technical composition of
> capital, some aspects of the classical wage theory need to be
> interrogated. Of course, workers struggle to have their wages
> sufficient to permit them to live in families.
>
> (2)'If this is so and the wage falls bellow the value of labor power
> and supposing this entices other members of the family to work then
> these other members can only get a complementary wage, that is a wage
> which complements the value of labor power, understood as a family
> value. Couldn´t this serve as the basis for understanding wage
> differentials between man and women? This mechanism would have nothing
> to do with different subsistance requirements but rather would be
> based on the concept of value of labor power as it applies to the
> family unity.' But, what determines who gets the 'complementary' wage?
> Also, to what extent is your suggestion based upon the implicit
> assumption that the standard of necessity is given? Eg., let us assume
> that other members of the family enter into wage labour and the family
> gets more than the (family) value of labour-power. What happens then?
> Obviously, they consume more. And then (in your argument)?
> in solidarity,
>   michael
>
>
> At 19:04 06/06/2003 -0300, you wrote:
>
>> I would like to reply to Michael that we could interpret
>> differentials in male/female workers in a that diverge from the
>> notion of different subsistence requirements.
>> If wages are supposed to allow for the reproduction of labor power
>> as a class of individuals it can only have a family meaning, that
>> is, it has to enough for the reproduction of the family, the social
>> space where the reproduction of that class takes place. If this is
>> so and the wage falls bellow the value of labor power and supposing
>> this entices other members of the family to work then these other
>> members can only get a complementary wage, that is a wage which
>> complements the value of labor power, understood as a family value.
>> Couldn´t this serve as the basis for understanding wage
>> differentials between man and women? This mechanism would have
>> nothing to do with different subistance requirements but rather
>> would be based on the concept of value of labor power as it applies
>> to the family unity.
>>
>> (By the way Michael, I am very interested in reading your book. Do
>> you know how much will the new edition cost? Is it presently
>> available at Amazon? Do you recommend waiting for the new edition?)
>> Thanks
>> Paulo
>>
>> "michael a. lebowitz" wrote:
>>
>> >  At 03:46 05/06/2003 -0400, Jerry wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>  What strikes me as missing, though, in the Meillasoux interview,
>> >>  and in Rakesh's musings on Marx's theory,  is the non-recognition
>> >>
>> >>  of the "cultural and moral" component of the wage.  To grasp
>> >>  the cultural and moral component more concretely, one must:
>> >>
>> >>  a) recognize that wage determination is brought about through
>> >>  class struggle.  One can not simply assert that wages will adjust
>> >>
>> >>  to whatever the 'needs' of capital are.
>> >>
>> >>  b) recognize how different histories of struggle internationally
>> >>  have resulted in different national 'standards' (or averages) of
>> >>  wages -- which are constantly in flux.  These international
>> >>  disparities in wages -- and the value of labour-power -- must
>> >>  be comprehended....
>> >
>> > Those who have been on the list for a long time will know I agree
>> > completely with Jerry's excellent comment on this point. It is one
>> > of the central themes in my 'Beyond CAPITAL: Marx's Political
>> > Economy of the Working Class' .The new, expanded edition is due out
>> > this month, and I'll send out a note shortly in relation to the
>> > changes. Here's an excerpt from Ch. 8 in the new edition relevant
>> > to Jerry's intervention:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >>  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. LebowitzProfessor
>> > EmeritusEconomics DepartmentSimon Fraser UniversityBurnaby, B.C.,
>> > Canada V5A 1S6Office: Phone (604) 291-4669         Fax   (604)
>> > 291-5944Home:   Phone (604) 689-9510 [NOTE CHANGE]
>>
> ---------------------Michael A. LebowitzProfessor EmeritusEconomics
> DepartmentSimon Fraser UniversityBurnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6Office:
> Phone (604) 291-4669         Fax   (604) 291-5944Home:   Phone (604)
> 689-9510 [NOTE CHANGE]
>


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jun 10 2003 - 00:00:00 EDT