From: Ian Wright (iwright@GMAIL.COM)
Date: Mon Sep 20 2004 - 00:25:28 EDT
Hi Jerry and Ajit > The level of abstraction where workers strive for economic equality > with each other is certainly more concrete than that presented in > _Capital_ since it presupposes subjectivity and trade union and class > consciousness. It requires the recognition of diversity within the class > and a concerted strategy to achieve unity-in-diversity. Homogenizing tendencies do not require trade union or class consciousness. For example, simple commodity production is sufficient. The assumptions are: production of commodities, regular monetized market exchanges, mobility of labour and the objective equality of the producers. The subjectivity requirements are extremely weak; basically the actors must play economic roles. This is not different to the subjectivity requirements of Marx's theory in Vol I. Contrary to what Ajit argues, the actors do not need to know the prevailing wage or the prevailing return to labour effort, although I think this is the usual case. The law of value can emerge via a lower-bound on subsistence requirements. The feedback information need only be quantities of goods. This is a logical point. It remains to be seen whether this logical possibility connects with any historical events. More generally, there must be a shared behavioural norm with relatively low variance within the working population for the law of value to emerge (e.g., striving for similar subsistence requirements, striving for good wages, etc.) In my view, the objective equality of people is a condition of possibility of such a norm. Simply put, such ideas would not persist if they were not objectively possible to realise. Ajit allows there is such a norm in capitalism, based on the idea of utility-maximising individuals: 'in this case it would be rational to assume that labor will move in the direction of higher remuneration, that is, workers would prefer to sell their labor-power to whoever offers the best price for their commodity'; but denies there can be such a norm in pre-capitalist economic setups, although I do not understand his argument at this point. But I'm happy that Ajit is considering dynamic labour mobility at all. My thinking is that this requirement for a norm will be easily satisfied prior to capitalism, and in accordance with my theoretical prejudices, the historical illustrations provided by Howard and Paul convince me. > At that level of abstraction, what is the causal mechanism that you > believe leads to the 'tendency' for wage rate equalization? Briefly, within capitalism, intra-class economic competition between workers in the labour market. The law of value doesn't need class consciousness and social democracy in order to exist. It's the other way around isn't it? -Ian.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Sep 25 2004 - 00:00:03 EDT