From: Anders Ekeland (anders.ekeland@ONLINE.NO)
Date: Tue Sep 14 2004 - 03:04:35 EDT
I think that both Ian and Jerry points to important aspects of the problem. And I think that empirically the development of wages in the Nordic countries (espec. Norway and Sweden) after WW II can be interpreted to support Ian's point. That is - when labour movement is strong - when workers are free to form the wage system - there will be (and still is) a strong urge for wage equalisation. The narrowing of wage differentials is very marked from 1945 - 1985. And this was not the result of Nordic "harmony" - on the contrary - in Norway we "lost" more workdays in the thirties than any other European country - there was very hard class confrontations. Same in Sweden. For an empirical description and slightly progressive, but neo-classicaly biased interpretation of this, search for Michael Wallerstein and Karl Ove Moene for articles in English. For those reading Scandinavian languages, their latest book: "Likhet under press" (Equality under stress) is a condensed summary of years of research into this. I wrote my master thesis at Univ. of Oslo (1990) on the problem of homogenous labour in Marxian Economics (regrettably in Norwegian) It agrees with Ian - based on the Nordic experiences. Marx is very confused on this issue of homogenous labour, not treating it properly and systematically in anywhere. This opens up for the critique of Elster, that the homogenous labour problem is prior to the transformation problem and that it is devastating for Marxian Ec. The various solutions (cost of training etc. does not solve this properly) Makoto Itohs book (was it Basic theory of capitalism?) has a solution to the problem of homogenous labour that is close to my view, but a bit different. The one liner is that since people are equal (not identical!!), their time is equally valuable. So if you by nature, chance, upbringing is above average clever at something - that does not give you any legitimate entitlement to a higer wage, to more of the product. It is the time that we devote of our equally valuable time to productive activity that is remunerated. In the long run, and in a rational society, there is no reason why professors should earn more than manual workers - and this is what happened in Scandinavia after the war. I am not updated on the issue any more - has there lately (since 1995) been written anything fundamentally, theorietically/empirically on what is the correct wage structure from a radical/marxian point of view? Regards Anders Ekeland Norway There is of course a lot more to say about this. But for the progressive/labour movement it is still a problem that one does not have a theoretical alternative to the neo-classical elitist, conformist view. The thinking about wages in the Norwegian labour movement is based on sound instinct, common sense. But as Moene and Wallerstein points out - even the rethoric was radicalised, from equal pay for equal work - to equal pay plain and simple. Regards Anders Ekeland At 02:51 14.09.2004, Gerald A. Levy wrote: >Hi Ian. > > > I think that the tendency for wages to homogenize should have an equal > > theoretical status to the tendency for profit rates to homogenize. > > Workers strive for economic equality with each other and capitalists > > strive for economic equality with each other. But they do so according > > to different rules and different methods. But in reality neither > > tendency is realised. > >1) Profit Rate Equalization > >To begin with, capitalists do *not* in general "strive for economic >equality with each other." On the contrary, it is the striving for >INequality by individual capitalists (i.e. individual capitalists searching >for a *higher* than average rate of profit) that is the mechanism that >helps to bring about and tendencially reproduce a general rate of >profit and prices of production. > >2) Wage Inequalities > >The striving of workers for economic equality is a very weak nail >to hang your theoretical hat on here, imho. One might with equal >or greater historical and theoretical basis claim that there is a long-term >tendency under capitalism for persistent and growing wage disparities >among workers. In any event, whether there is wage homogenization >depends on highly contingent factors -- such as disparities in organization, >solidarity, and militancy among workers internationally -- and so I >question whether there is any theoretical or observable empirical >tendency for wages to equalize. It is true that there are deskilling trends >which could work towards a lessening of wage disparities among workers >but there are contrary trends as well. Furthermore, only a segment of >workers struggle for wage equality; another segment of workers who >receive higher than the average wage struggle for higher wages for >themselves and, although it may not be what they intended, greater wage >inequalities result. Lastly, even if there is a lessening of wage >disparities among workers this does not mean that this result is a >consequence of workers striving to reduce inequalities within the >working class. > >In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 15 2004 - 00:00:03 EDT