From: Paul Cockshott (wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK)
Date: Mon Sep 27 2004 - 18:19:26 EDT
I note that the original propositions here have got at bit derailed. There were two issues originally 1. Whether in a pre-capitalist society there would be enough long term mobility of social labour between trades to enforce the law of value. The equalisation here is not of wages but of returns to labour. Equalisation of wages in a capitalist economy is obviously a different issue, as these relate to labour power not labour. 2. The proposition of Farjoun and Machover on the narrow spread of profit shares ( ratio of profit to wages in a firm or sector ) has also been at issue. Note that this does not suppose an equalisation of wages but an equalisation of the share of wages in net value added between sectors. This related indirectly to the point raised by Dave Z about narrower dispersions of the profit share being correlated at least in the Swedish case to closer approximations to a 50 50 split of net value added between wages and profits. -----Original Message----- From: OPE-L on behalf of Gerald A. Levy Sent: Sat 9/25/2004 2:25 PM To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU Subject: (OPE-L) Re: tendencies for equalization Hi Paolo. > Curiously enough I think competition among workers does not lead to > equalization tendencies, on the contrary. > In fact I think this equalization story runs against just about everything > that springs out of Marx´s analysis: > 1. different techniques within an industry leads to the exploitation of > different strata of the working class; the least productive capitals use > the lower strata of the working class, pay a lot less and sacrifice > a bit of the surplus value so extracted in order to be able to compete > with the most advanced capitals; > 2. the analysis under 1 is supported by the stratification of the > industrial reserve army into several different levels of despair and > holplessness so that competion among workers can easily be used > by capitals of different efficiencies; > 3. the heterogeneous nature of the industrial reserve army puts different > pressures on different segments of the labor market so that depression of > wages is not necessarily homogeneous all across industries and firms. As you've seen, I've also challenged the belief that there is a long-term tendency for wage equalization under capitalism. While I agree with much of what you write, I think the above is the case: a) at a level of abstraction where there is foreign trade and world markets and/or; b) for an individual capitalist social formation where/if the market for labour power is spatially divided and when/if labour mobility between sectors/segments is inhibited (as, for example, in the case of a 'dual economy' with segmented labour markets). I think, though, that one should *first* analyze this question at a level of abstraction where neither a) or b) are considered and *then* ask how a) and b) modify the abstract tendencies assumed at an earlier stage in the reconstruction of the subject in thought. As I've suggested earlier, all that is required to show the fallacy of the tendency for wage rate equalization is to assume that: a) there are separate markets for unskilled labour power and skilled labour power; b) while mobility by unskilled workers is not (assumed to be) inhibited in the market for unskilled labour-power, mobility from the unskilled to the skilled labour-market is assumed to either not exist or be negligible. And, it is further assumed that skilled workers only have mobility within their particular trade. c) there is an industrial reserve army; d) the IRA and the demand for labour-power (both skilled and unskilled) are variables that are subject to change over the course of the trade cycle. However, what you write above would be a logical next step: i.e. to ask whether wage disparities increase where technological change and competition among firms are more explicitly taken into consideration. That analysis also, though, should initially be conducted at the level of abstraction of 'capital in general' (and hence international and regional trade and markets are initially not considered). In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Sep 30 2004 - 00:00:03 EDT