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