Fred wrote in [OPE-L:2530]:
> Marx's
> analysis of absolute surplus-value (conflict over the length of the working
> day and over the intensity of labor) and relative surplus-value
> (technological change) follow as logical deductions from this aggregate
> theory of surplus-value, as Duncan has already argued.
Why are you classifying an increase in the intensity of labor as an
increase in absolute surplus value? To the entent that increasing
intensity of labor increases the productivity of labor, shouldn't it be
considered to be a (secondary, but important) form and source of relative
surplus value?
On PEN-L (in December or January?) this question, along with how one
defines productivity of labor, was debated by Blair Sandler, Terrence
McDonough, Jim Miller, and OPE-Lers Rakesh, Riccardo, and myself. I
believe the issues are important and well worth discussing on this Net.
Any thoughts by others?
In OPE-L Solidarity,
Jerry