From: michael a. lebowitz (mlebowit@SFU.CA)
Date: Sat Nov 22 2003 - 15:09:38 EST
At 18:10 21/11/2003 -0200, Paulo wrote:
>Mike, you wrote:
>"Marx did not in Capital draw a link between productivity and real wages
>because he assumed the latter constant in his discussion of relative
>surplus value. What I've been posing is that the result of this assumption
>is that the premise for the emergence of relative surplus value in practice
>is hidden."
>If I understand your point you are arguing that without knowing how money
>wages
>evolve as productivity increases we cannot say anything about the rate of
>surplus value. Is this a fair understanding of your point?
Yes. If money wages are constant when productivity in the production of
wage goods increases, won't real wages rise? (I.e., won't it be workers who
are the beneficiaries of productivity gains?) For real wages to be
constant, there must be a mechanism by which money wages fall at the same
rate as the values of wage goods. And, then there is the intermediate case
in which money wages fall but by less than values--- the case where
increases in both real wages and the rate of surplus value occur. I think
you can see why I'm stressing the need to separate the case where
productivity increases drop from the sky and one where they are the product
of, eg. the substitution of machinery for workers.
>Now wages as a magnitude that changes over time is the result of causes that
>involve competition among workers as well as competition among capitalists.
>Could this be a reason to have postponed the analysis of wage labor: the fact
>that it falls outside the range of the analysis of capital in general and
>requires a more detailled analysis of competition?
My concern is not the postponement of the discussion of wage-labour. I can
see a number of reasons for this. Rather, it's the failure subsequently to
address this (and to explore any implications of that postponement). The
reason you suggest, however, is not one that I've thought about. Rather,
I've tried to look at this as a focus on wage labour in general, the idea
being that we need to look at capital in general, then wage-labour in
general and then their unity before exploring the forms both take in
competition. As in the case of capital, I think we need to try to grasp the
general and necessary tendencies of wage labour before exploring their
necessary forms of appearance in competition.
>Even though he may have assumed real wages as constant I think you know better
>than me that the elements for the analysis of changing real wages (understood
>as a change in the real basket of necessities) is already there in the
>analysis, especially in the Grundrisse. Donīt you agree?
Yes, I definitely agree. What I'm trying to do is bring all this material
together and explore questions which I think have been obscured by the
assumption of given real wages that Marx intended to remove. I think the
Economic Manuscript of 1861-63 adds very much to the pieces, too. Thanks
for the questions, which help me to make myself clearer (I hope).
in solidarity,
michael
>Paulo
>"michael a. lebowitz" wrote:
>
> > At 21:54 20/11/2003 -0800, Ajit wrote:
> > >Mike L. Wrote:
> > > > No, you have misunderstood me. I am not using
> > > > relative strength (or, as in
> > > > the book, the degree of separation of workers) to
> > > > determine first real
> > > > wages and then the rate of surplus value. That would
> > > > indeed be
> > > > questionable. Rather, I asked what happens to the
> > > > former if the latter is
> > > > given as the result of a given balance of class
> > > > forces (degree of
> > > > separation of workers) and productivity rises. But
> > > > the same point can be
> > > > approached in many ways: if we treat real wages as
> > > > variable, what happens
> > > > to real wages in a commodity money economy if
> > > > productivity in the
> > > > production of wage goods increases? What if that
> > > > productivity increase
> > > > drops from the sky (i.e., we are not considering the
> > > > effect of an increase
> > > > in the technical composition of capital)?
> > > > in solidarity,
> > > > michael
> > >________________________
> > >
> > >Good! Now the issue is becoming clearer to me. I don't
> > >see a great problem in posing the question this way.
> >
> > Great! We're reducing the gap.
> >
> > >However, there is some problem, as I see it. At this
> > >time you do not seem to have a theory of wages. You
> > >seem to be dealing with three variables, namely real
> > >wages, degree of separation of the working class, and
> > >the labor productivity. It is not clear in what kind
> > >of relationship these three variables stand with each
> > >other. Apparently, your argument is that given the
> > >degree of separation fixed, there must be a straight
> > >line inverse relation between the changes in
> > >productivity and the real wage. This will be true in
> > >the world of three variables, with the rest of the
> > >world frozen.
> >
> > Yes-- although you mean a direct relation.
> >
> > > But this is nothing but simply another
> > >way of putting the proposition that given every thing
> > >else being constant, the real wage is a direct
> > >function of labor productivity.
> >
> > The key is-- 'everything else being constant'. I don't think that is true
> > if productivity increases as the result of the substitution of means of
> > production for direct living labour. In that case, all other things equal,
> > unemployment increases and the degree of separation among workers
> > increases. (The condition for a constant real wage, then, is that the
> > degree of separation rises at the same rate as productivity.) However, if
> > productivity increases drop from the sky....
> >
> > > But this is not much
> > >different from the neoclassical proposition which says
> > >that with everything remaining constant, the real wage
> > >is a function of labor productivity.
> > > Your proposition
> > >is a bit more stronger than the neoclassical one,
> > >since the neoclassical one does not draw a
> > >proportionate relationship of real wages with labor
> > >productivity.
> >
> > The real parallel is that both propositions are based on the core
> > pre-analytical vision: the neoclassical proposition presuming that everyone
> > gets what they deserve, and the Marxian-- that everything revolves around
> > class struggle.
> >
> > >This is not to say that this proposition
> > >is meaningless or wrong. Empirically it appears that
> > >the neoclassical proposition does better on this score
> > >than Marx's one. My point was that Marx did not think
> > >this way since he explicitly refused to draw a
> > >relationship between labor productivity and real
> > >wages. My sense is that your proposition will continue
> > >to appear to hang in the air till you develop a theory
> > >of real wage determination.
> >
> > Marx did not in Capital draw a link between productivity and real wages
> > because he assumed the latter constant in his discussion of relative
> > surplus value. What I've been posing is that the result of this assumption
> > is that the premise for the emergence of relative surplus value in practice
> > is hidden.
> > in solidarity,
> > michael
> >
> > ---------------------
> > Michael A. Lebowitz
> > Professor Emeritus
> > Economics Department
> > Simon Fraser University
> > Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6
> > Office Fax: (604) 291-5944
> > Home: Phone (604) 689-9510
---------------------
Michael A. Lebowitz
Professor Emeritus
Economics Department
Simon Fraser University
Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6
Office Fax: (604) 291-5944
Home: Phone (604) 689-9510
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Nov 24 2003 - 00:00:01 EST