From: ajit sinha (sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM)
Date: Sat Oct 07 2006 - 15:20:05 EDT
--- Rakesh Bhandari <bhandari@BERKELEY.EDU> wrote: > > > >Marx's simple story works this way: Historically > real > >wages are determined around what prevailed as the > real > >income of the class that largely became proletariat > in > >the historical transformation of any given society. > >Thus historically wages in different societies > could > >start from different levels. For example, it > started > >at higher level in the United States than say > England. > > > >However, the population principle of capitalism, > which > >is given by labor saving technical changes, creates > >downward pressure on wages over time and thus wages > >have a tendency to fall towards what in diferent > >societies will be considered subsistence level. Now > >this prediction has come out to be wrong. > > But. Ajit, I don't agree that this is what Marx is > saying. In > Capital I, Marx explicitly allows for national > differences in wages > and average rates of surplus value. _______________________ When did I say he did not? Of course, even the bare physiological subsistence will differ because of difference in environment. Need for survival in cold environment is greater than in warm environment. But this is not all, As Adam Smith had noted there is always a cultural aspect involved in the definition of subsistence--it may be much cheaper to survive on mainly a diet based on potato but still for a Bengali worker you will need to define subsistence in terms of rise and fish diet. Adam Smith actually went further by arguing that if wages stay higher than subsistence for a long time due to long period of growth of the economy, the high consumption may become culturally ingrained and become part of the socially accepted subsistence. __________________________________ > > Also, I think we need to make sense of why Marx > would write in the > Critique of the Gotha Programme: " > that, consequently, the system of wage labor is a > system of slavery, > and indeed of a slavery which becomes more severe in > proportion as > the social productive forces of labor develop, > whether the worker > receives better or worse payment." ______________________ This idea can work only if you assume that workers wages are never high enough that the working class as a whole could go on making positive savings. Because if that was possible than it cannot be denied that the working class as a whole after a few generations might not acquire enough capital that it puts the whole system into crisis. This is another example that gives credence to my point that Marx did not expect a rising trend in real wages (however, it would be interesting to develop a relationship between consumerism and high wages in advanced capitalist society from this point of view of the necessity of the system to perpetuate itself). Most of my books are in India and I'm in Paris, so I cannot check the context of your quote right now but statements like "better or worse" is generally thrown to cover one's back against real developments going against one's expectations. But here the context of better or worse could be cross sectional--that is comparative wages across different economies. In that case the statement is perfectly okay. _____________________ > > In what way does slavery become more severe? How > does it not matter > whether the worker receives better or worse payment? _____________________ It could mean that capitalism encroches into all other forms of economic activities and therefore the possibility of getting out of the system becomes norrower. _________________________ > > What is the difference between Marx's "allotment" > theory of the wage > and Sraffa's distributional theory of the wage? ______________________ Sraffa's system is not concerned with a long term tragectory of the capitalist system but Marx's is, so I would think the difference would essentially lie there. ____________________ > > > > >The whole > >idea that Marx argued that 'relative' wages would > >fall, i.e., relative to profits, and not absolute > >wages, flies in the face of all evidence and > >arguments. > > Of course depends on how variable capital is > understood. But many > have argued that there is at least a weak tendency > for s/v to rise. __________________ Of course, one implication of my argument is that s/v would rise. _________________ > > > > >To the best of my knowledge, no body has > >shown how a long term trend in the fall of > 'relative' > >wages in relation to profits can be maintained > >simultaneously with the notion of a long term trend > in > >the rate of profits to fall. Any way, one needs to > >come up with some theoretical arguments of how this > >could happen? One could argue that actually the > rate > >of growth of the economy has been faster than the > rate > >of labor displacement and a positive rate of growth > of > >population could only be maintained through higher > >real wages (this is the case of Adam Smith). Or one > >could argue that rise in labor productivity somehow > >increases the bargaining strength of labor. Now if > >Marx's argument is taken to be correct that the > >dynamism of capitalism is to increase the rate of > >unemployment over time, then the question becomes > how > >would labor's bargaining strength increase in this > >scenario? > > > No Marx's argument is that the surplus population > increases in > absolute terms over time. This is not the same as > the rate of > unemployment. Moreover, unemployment is easily > disguised--prisons, > poverty wages for the provison of services for the > rich, withdrawal > from the labor market, etc. ___________________ Okay call it reserve army of labor, if that makes you happy! ______________ > > > >This is where the notion of norms and > >conventions, which allows us to bring in a host of > >complex political and sociological factors into > play, > >could be of help. > > Yet Marx argues that workers remain enslaved whether > the pay be high > or low. Is this just a rhetorical flourish? Or is > there a theoretical > argument here? ________________________ Marx's argument is that high wages still keeps the workers wage laborers. The point I have made above is that high enough wage could generate enough savings by the workers to put the capitalist relations of production in crisis. It appears that Marx did not think through this issue--may be he thought that the tragectory of capitalism was in opposite direction and so he did not think much about it. Cheers, ajit sinha __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Oct 31 2006 - 00:00:03 EST