From: gerald_a_levy (gerald_a_levy@MSN.COM)
Date: Sun Nov 23 2003 - 09:43:11 EST
Mike L wrote: > What does the composition of capital have to do with Marx's > discussion of the theory of relative surplus value in Vol. I, Ch. 13? It has to do with whether real wages will rise when there is an increase in productivity. > I have no difficulty in seeing the relevance of changes in TCC. > That, in fact, is my point in asking people to distinguish between the > case of productivity increases that drop from the sky (Vol I, Ch13) > and those that occur through the displacement of workers by machines. > Specifically, what I have argued in the book is: 'The basis, in short, for > relative surplus value is not the growth in productivity.... Only an increased > degree of separation among workers initiated by the introduction of machinery > ensures that productivity will rise relative to the real wage ' (115). Yes, but I think it is also fair to say that an increase in productivity is an *expression* of the increase in relative surplus value. What do you think of the following proposition? When there isn't a given real wage, relative surplus value becomes _relative_ in the following sense: if real wages increase at a rate equal to the rate of growth of productivity then (additional) relative surplus value doesn't emerge since necessary labour time as a proportion of the total working day has grown and there is thus no increase in surplus labour time and hence no (additional) relative surplus value. (this was the meaning of a somewhat cryptic 1-line post I sent on 11/12). In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Nov 24 2003 - 00:00:01 EST