From: Gerald A. Levy (Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM)
Date: Sun May 02 2004 - 08:40:32 EDT
Hi Paul C. Mike L asked: > Doesn't the set of necessaries underlying the value of > labour-power have something to do with historically > developed social needs, which become second nature? You replied: > I suspect that given time and mobility of capital, > some historically developed social necessities might > be found by the ruling class to be not so necessary > after all. What the ruling class believes to be necessary does not by itself determine what becomes a standard in a culture for social necessity. It goes without saying that the capitalist class will strive where and when possible to lower the cultural standards of the working class regarding necessity, but it can not unilaterally decrease a standard which has become an aspect of the culture itself. Note in the paragraph above, I wrote culture or cultural three times. This was not accidental. I repeated these words to encourage others to think about the VLP in relation to construction, deconstruction and conflict that happens within specific cultures. To focus on physiological standards when conceiving of the VLP is not only a throw-back to Lasalle's Iron Law of Wages but is also suggestive of a *functionalist* sociological perspective on culture and value. Yet, the determination of the VLP and the shaping of cultural practice is not nearly as stable and orderly a process as functionalists suggest. > I accept your argument that the actual wage is determined > by conditions of class struggle, but this allows it to be > raised above what is strictly necessary for reproduction. What is "strictly necessary for reproduction"? Bread (or substitute) and water? Physiologically, we can survive for many days without food and less days without water. This has been demonstrated in many survival situations and in concentration camps. No society in the world now views that as its standard of necessity. The point is that what is seen as "strictly necessary" varies spatially and temporally. It is _itself_ a standard and _norm_ specific to individual cultures and societies. > We want to defend the actual real wage from being reduced > so we say that it is no more than the value of labour power. > I suspect that it is well above the value of labour power, but > of course workers are still exploited. The point is that the VLP specific to a particular society can itself change over time. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon May 03 2004 - 00:00:01 EDT