From: GERALD LEVY (gerald_a_levy@msn.com)
Date: Sun Jun 01 2008 - 09:25:18 EDT
> It seems to me that there are two useful notions of productivity:> Either the output per unit of direct labour, i.e. labour productivity at > the 'plant level'.> Or output per unit of social labour, i.e. inverse unit labour-values.> But they are quite similar and involve physical quantities. Hi Dave Z: Well, there have been (at least) two different definitions of productivity used by Marxians: one (output/worker/period of time) uses the conventional measure and focuses on the production of physical quantities (use-values) per unit of labor time. The other definition asserts that for the productivity of labor to change the ratio of necessary to surplus labor time must change. These two definitions are quite distinct and lead to differing interpretations: e.g. can the productivity of labor increase because of increasing intensity of labor absent technological change? On a related note, there are different understandings of absolute and relative surplus value: is an increase in labor intensity an increase in absolute or relative s? Riccardo (in 1996) noted that there are two different expressions - with different meanings - in German by Marx which have been translated into English as 'productivity of labor' but I couldn't readily find that post (from PEN-L). Perhaps that's the source of the confusion. In solidarity, Jerry _______________________________________________ ope mailing list ope@lists.csuchico.edu https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jun 30 2008 - 00:00:16 EDT