From: Jerry Levy (Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM)
Date: Thu May 11 2006 - 23:33:15 EDT
> I am inclined to view the section on intensity of labour as > reflecting the interpenetration of absolute and relative S-- ie., > absolute S within the discussion of relative. For me the essence of > the question is that in absolute s, coercion plays the role of > compelling additional expenditure of labour by the worker; in > relative, introduction of a superior method of production permits > greater productivity with no greater exertion by workers. (Anything > not logical about this distinction?) Hi Mike L, There is _still_ coercion since productivity-increasing technological change is _imposed_ on workers by capital. When the jobs of workers are replaced by robots, you don't think that they are coerced? Coercion in the labor process is the forcible imposition of the will of capital on wage-laborers. It is easier to see the coercion, perhaps, when and where capital succeeds in imposing increases in the intensity of labor and an increase in absolute surplus value on labor, but an increase in relative surplus value through technological change is definitely coercive. The coercive nature of relative surplus value increases brought about by technological change can also be seen in the way that capital uses technological change as a lever, in practice, to increase the intensity of labor. In other words, technological change -- to the extent that it can imperil jobs -- often increases capital's bargaining power vis-a-vis workers and thereby makes it easier for them to impose increased labor intensity on workers. What's key here, in part, is whether the composition of capital remains the same or is growing and whether the industrial reserve army is growing or not. Ultimately, the coercion associated with _all_ forms of raising surplus value remains the same: capital's message to workers is to do what we tell you or else ... you will be 'freed' from employment. It is a coercion imposed on workers by their social need to acquire money in order to buy the commodities that they need for survival. In that sense, it's the same shit. > ps. I refuse to treat an increase in intensity of work as an increase > in productivity--- that's capital's accounting! We're talking about forms of surplus value, aren't we? (I thought you already agreed to that.) Increases in surplus value -- in whatever form -- are beneficial from a capitalist accounting perspective. It's true that increases in productivity associated with technological change increase the _potential_ for gains by workers, but it does not necessarily follow that they do gain. Nor does it follow that from labor's perspective, this form of increased production of relative surplus value should be supported. Indeed, on balance, they may (in some circumstances) lose more through this form of increased extraction of surplus value. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed May 31 2006 - 00:00:03 EDT