From: Rakesh Bhandari (bhandari@BERKELEY.EDU)
Date: Sat Apr 16 2005 - 10:52:04 EDT
At 8:10 AM +0930 4/15/05, Ian Hunt wrote: >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. Dear Ian, I don't know if the only works here. What then of wage and price controls? What of the history of maximum wage laws? And I am not clear about how this difference between slave and wage labor (note that Banaji defines wage labor in such a way that it includes some forms of slavery; the wage can be paid in provision lots, in use values, scrips, etc., though not everyone paid in such a form is ipso facto a wage laborer) speaks to the question of value. Yours, Rakesh >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 : Mon Apr 18 2005 - 00:00:02 EDT