From: Ian Hunt (Ian.Hunt@FLINDERS.EDU.AU)
Date: Thu Apr 14 2005 - 18:40:45 EDT
Dear Rakesh, You introduce a number of other reasons why slaves and machines might not get on: my primary point though is that a master can dictate what slaves consume, whereas under wage labour for capital, capitalists can limit workers' consumption only though a surplus labouring population that maintains competition between labourers in the free market for labour, as accumulation continues. This requires persistent "downsizing" of the workforce, Cheers, Ian >At 2:21 PM +1030 4/14/05, Ian Hunt wrote: >>Dear Rakesh, >>I think you have not understood my point- sorry for not expressing it >>clearly. I agree there is conflict between slaves/serfs and their >>masters. I agree that in slave commodity production, surplus value is >>produced. Labour time also plays a role. However, the drive for >>relative surplus value present in capitalism, with a salient role for >>labour displacing technical change, would not be part of the dynamic >>of slave commodity production. Capital in this form can afford to be >>technically lazy, since necessary labour time is set at the master's >>command, not through competition between labourers in the market >>place. > >Dear Ian, >Yes, yes, you had not mentioned the concept of >relative surplus value, and I certainly see the >logic of this argument that the transition from >absolute to relative surplus value depends on >the attainment of the civic equality of labor; >however, we should check this argument against >the history of technical change on the >plantations. For their time, they may not have >been technological laggards. Why would a >plantation owner have been more reluctant to >carry out mechanization where this was possible >and could be profitable. If mechanization >rendered redundant slaves that had already been >paid for or were inherited gratis as progeny, >those slaves could be sold or forced to purchase >their freedom through commodity production as >independent peasants. Were slaves more likely to >mishandle machines than free wage laborers (as >Cairnes and Olmstead suggested)? Charles Post >convincingly argues that there is no reason why >with the right mixture of coercion and >incentives slaves could not work machinery as >effectively as free wage laborers. Slavery may >not have fettered mechanization. > >Whether indentured, slave or free wage labor had >been used, there may have simply been limited >possibilities of mechanization in the cleaning >of tobacco leaves, the picking of cotton seeds >and the harvesting of sugar. In other words, >slavery was resorted to exactly because >mechanization was difficult, the demands for >labor were high and the treatment of labor >terrible in these agricultural activities (so >free labor would not do it). > >Moreover, the eventual lag in the >industrialization of the American South >vis-à-vis the Northeast was probably in part the >result of the plantations using the child and >female labor on which early industrialization >depended. Children and women were not as >extensively used in the kind of farming >practiced in Northeast and Midwest. > >Thanks for the clarification. > >Yours, Rakesh > > >> Obviously, I did not mean for you to extrapolate from my words >>that there is a more fundamental difference between industrial >>capitalism and others forms of capitalism based on slavery, merchant >>or financial capital than the above. >>cheers, >>ian >> >>>At 11:47 AM +1030 4/14/05, Ian Hunt wrote: >>>>If can chip in here too. It is not clear that in total >>>>mechanization, labour time would retain its significance: as Chris >>>>suggests, the issue is that of a conflict of interest between >>>>labourer and capitalist, when both have a formally equal social >>>>standing. Machines, no matter how ingenious or creative, would have >>>>no interests in potential conflict with capital unless they had lives >>>>of their own and consciously pursued their own interest in those >>>>lives. If they did and had formally equal social standing, then the >>>>social relations of capital would have a place. On the other hand, if >>>>they were persons but lacked equal social standing, we would have >>>>slave or feudal commodity production: labour time no doubt would play >>>>a role here but not the same as under capitalism. >>> >>>I don't understand this--there is no conflict between slaves/serfs >>>and masters? Why is equal standing necessary for there to be a >>>conflict of interest? Why must there be a conflict of interest among >>>people of equal (juridical?) standing for surplus value to be >>>produced, and to be the aim of production. Certainly surplus value >>>can be produced even if people do have equal juridical standing, but >>>this does not prove that they must for it to be produced. >>>rb >> >> >>-- >>Associate Professor Ian Hunt, >>Head, Dept of Philosophy, School of Humanities, >>Director, Centre for Applied Philosophy, >>Flinders University of SA, >>Humanities Building, >>Bedford Park, SA, 5042, >>Ph: (08) 8201 2054 Fax: (08) 8201 2784 -- Dr Ian Hunt Associate Professor in Philosophy, Dept of Philosophy , Director, Centre for Applied Philosophy, School of Humanities, Flinders University of SA, Humanities Building, Bedford Park, SA, 5042, Ph: (08) 8201 2054 Fax: (08) 8201 2784
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Apr 17 2005 - 00:00:02 EDT