From: Paul Cockshott (wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK)
Date: Tue Sep 28 2004 - 10:24:22 EDT
Under European feudalism the urban population tended to experience a long term growth. Given that the urban mortality rate due to infections was higher than the rural level, this implied that the urban population was growing due to inflow from the countryside. Thus from generation to generation there was a recruitment into urban trades. This may have been contrary to the wishes of feudal lords, but nonetheless urban areas did grow and experience a labour inflow. The mobility of labour under slavery was obviously much higher so we need not discuss that. I don't know enough about pre-capitalist Japan, China and India to know if there was a similar migration into towns there. -----Original Message----- From: OPE-L [mailto:OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU] On Behalf Of Gerald A. Levy Sent: 28 September 2004 02:41 To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU Subject: (OPE-L) Re: tendencies for equalization Hi Paul C. You identified an issue as: > Whether in a pre-capitalist society there would > be (should be "was" rather than "would be") > enough long term mobility of social labour between > trades to enforce the law of value. . Which pre-capitalist social formation are you thinking of? *Every* pre-capitalist society in which any significant percentage of products were produced for the purpose of exchange was a *class* society in which the mobility of labor was *strongly* and *systematically* restricted by the existing relations of production. The mobility of labor under feudalism was *severely* restricted by the feudal lords and the customs and traditions associated with that mode of production. Basically, there was *no* significant mobility between trades (this was also true in the period of merchant capitalism). To refer to a "tendency" where workers try to get out of sectors where wages or "returns to labor" rise because workers "try to get out of sectors where wages are low, and to get into sectors where they are high" (quote from a 9/17 post by Allin) makes *no* sense under feudal relations of production because laborers could not -- except in highly unusual situations -- choose which sector or trade they wished to be in. In the "Asiatic mode of production", as well, there was no significant mobility of laborers in different crafts. As for social formations where the slave mode of production dominated, it makes no sense whatsoever to talk about the effort of slaves to leave one sector and enter another in search of a higher "return to labor." So (to repeat) which pre-capitalist social formation are you thinking of? In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Sep 29 2004 - 00:00:03 EDT