From: Howard Engelskirchen (howarde@TWCNY.RR.COM)
Date: Fri Jun 08 2007 - 03:16:03 EDT
Apologies to all! It's late and the highlighted line moved on its own. I sent a private message to the list. Could have been worse! Howard ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rakesh Bhandari" <bhandari@BERKELEY.EDU> To: <OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU> Sent: Friday, June 08, 2007 1:35 AM Subject: Re: [OPE-L] Complex and simple labour: English trans. of French Capital I? The organization of the division of labor can be left to the market only if the labor available to society has become practically abstract and homogeneous. General commodity production is inherently anarchical and requires the continuous redeployment in light of price fluctuations of what has to have thus already become a homogeneous abstract workforce. In this sense the Foucault who closed in on Marx the more he repudiated him may well be quite right about the autonomy of dispotifs: the economy has as its condition of possibility the social technologies required to produce such a workforce. There is also unsurprising anxiety about the the averageness and levelling down of mass anonymous society--that any-one, das Man could (if motivated) quite easily do one's work with identical result. As David Gleicher long ago argued, such a result depends on the general education of the workforce, the simplification of labor tasks, and the general mobility of doubly free proletarians. Simple abstract labor is simply no mental abstraction to the modern workforce. Unlike value per se, simple abstract labor as the substance of value is not posited by or brought into existence through exchange but the condition of possibility for anarchical commodity exchange relations to have become generalized in the first place. Simple abstract labor is a practical abstraction and a historical product. For those who perform it, it may well often be more central to their identity than any other life activity or social role; for those who do not, it has often been the object of either a radical aristocratic revulsion or what Luc Boltanski and Eva Chiapello call artistic critique. There is no chance that bourgeois economists would allow a science of society to be built on such a humble, albeit solid, foundation and to be centered on questions of the (monetary) representation, allocation, employment levels and exploitation of simple abstract labor. Now we can move to skilled labor which cannot be immediately performed by simple average labor. But this labor is no different in qualitative terms: it too must be trained and socialized, it too creates value in accordance with the expenditure of social labor time its work represents, it too is exploited, its high wages will also elicit greater competition (even if there is a delay for training); and the unit values of its respective products fall absolutely and possibly relatively as a result of both the rising productivity of qualified labor due say to CAD/CAM and the rationalization of its training (so that it 'embodies' less labor time and thus discharges less compounded labor in its work). The multiple at which a product of skilled labor exchanges against a product of unskilled labor changes behind everyone's back but the dynamics find their cause in the law of value, in intersectoral variations in the rates of productivity growth. At any rate, while wage differences may reflect differences in value creating capacity, they are not themselves the cause of those latter differences. It also goes without saying that we are talking about skilled labor, not "symbolic analysts" such as qualified managers, legal counsel and creative CFOs of or for the capitalist class. Rakesh >Dear Rakesh, >>I would like to read a copy. >I'll send it to the list when it is readable. > >It's difficult to see what the problem >>is once one remembers that for Marx commodities exchange in terms not >>of the actual hours expended on their production but the socially >>necessary time required for their reproduction. Marx carefully >>undermined the individualist foundations of the classical labor >>theory of value. > >I do not think the "labour reduction problem" is >directly connected to the "socially necessary >time" either production or reproduction. The >question Marx answers is if some types of labour >creates more value per hour than others - given >that the intensity is average, that the work >done is socially accepted etc. etc. > >>If society did not count products of complex >>labor--say a report on a X ray or architectural blueprints--as some >>multiple of simple labor, then the socially necessary supply of X ray >>reports and blueprints would not be forthcoming. > >It is not clear to me that this example is really to the point. > >When Marx thinks that a brick-layer is simple >labour and a damask-weaver is complex labour, >that the spinner does simple labour and the >jeweler complex labour - the latter creating >2-3-6 times more value per hour - it means that >the "reduction coefficients" become important. >The relation between labour creating ability and >wages is also a very important question. Are the >observed wage differences a reflection of >differences in value creating ability, i.e. that >the rate of exploitation is uniform. Do top >managers deserve their wage? Do jewelers >compared to weavers? > >Marx was very critical of existing income >differences - and it is not clear what Marx >regarded as the just differences and what he >regarded as "blosse Illutionen" (pure >prejudices) - he gave no real criteria for >drawing that line. > >>However, to the >>extent that the acquisition of such skills becomes rationalized and >>democratized, the multiple declines over time. Which is what >>Hilferding emphasized. Custom, monopoly, and intellectualist >>prejudice cannot prevent such a leveling. The law of value regulates >>exchange over time. > >Hilferding's solution - his answer to >Böhm-Bawerk merits a detailed analysis, but for >Marx democratization and rationalization is not >a primary issue. To Marx there are more >"delicate" professions and less "delicate" ones >- and that is independent of technological and >democratic changes. > >>But I look forward to hearing about Anders' analysis as well as >>Makoto's. And then there are the older responses of Rowthorn, >>Carchedi and Hilferding. > >Neither Carchedi - who has a lot of interesting >general, methodological comments - but no >solution. Hilferding has also a lot of insights, >but as Rosdolsky points out - does not really >hold water theoretically. > >As I said before - I think the only solution is >to make this a non-problem - abstract labour >abstracts from all specificities of labour - and >measure labour only in time - and then you >cannot reintroduce the complex/simple dimension. > >Regards >Anders > >>Yours, Rakesh >> >>> >>>My own solution became different from Marx or >>>his followers, as you may be awa >>>re of it in my paper 'Skilled Labour in Value >>>Theory' (in Capital and Class, 3 >>>1, Spring, 1987, and chap.6 of my book, The >>>Basic Theory of Capitalism, Macmil >>>lan, 1988.). I shall be happy if I can hear your comments on it too. >>> >>>All the best, >>> >>>Makoto Itoh >>> >>>----- Original Message ----- >>>>Date: Wed, 30 May 2007 20:15:56 +0200 >>>>From: Anders Ekeland <anders.ekeland@ONLINE.NO> >>>>Subject: [OPE-L] Complex and simple labour: >>>>English trans. of French Capital >>>I? >>>>To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU >>>> >>>> >>>>Dear all, >>>> >>>>I am working on the problem of the reduction of complex to >>>>simple/abstract labour. In the French edition of Capital Marx has a >>>>somewhat different "solution" to the comlex/simple labour problem. >>>>This is discussed by French (and Russians, using the French edition) >>>>Marxists, but generally overlooked in the English and German debate. >>>> >>>>Is there an English translation of the French Capital? >>>> >>>>Are anyone aware of authors discussing the different "solutions" in >>>>the German and French editions? >>>> >>>>Regards >>>>Anders Ekeland
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jun 30 2007 - 00:00:04 EDT