RE: AUT: RE: Marxism and Education

["Harry M. Cleaver" <hmcleave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

No rush; hang in there. I'm way overloaded myself at the moment.
H.

On Wed, 3 Mar 2004, Harvie, David wrote:

> Harry,
>
> Thanks for doing this; it's useful. I was going to attempt some sort of summary of where we substantially agree and where we disagree, and I think the question of whether teachers produce surplus value is our main point of disagreement.
>
> Anyway, I've only just read your response --- been away and returned to way too much teaching labour, whatever its (un)productive status --- and I need to think about it a bit before I respond. So a few days...
>
> David
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Harry M. Cleaver [mailto:hmcleave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> >Sent: 25 February 2004 00:17
> >To: aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >Subject: RE: AUT: RE: Marxism and Education
> >
> >
> >David,
> >Our conversation has gotten long, fragmented and somewhat
> >convoluted. Let me respond to what I take to be the main point
> >of your last intervention and work through the relationships
> >at issue in a methodical, if somewhat tedious, manner. See below.
> >
> >On Sun, 22 Feb 2004, Harvie, David wrote:
> >
> >> Harry wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Sat, 21 Feb 2004, Harvie, David wrote:
> >> >
> >> > <snip>
> >> > > But isn't the teacher's work an element of average SNLT for
> >> > > "producing" the skills, attitudes, etc incorporating in the
> >> > > graduate? So this work does indeed count.
> >> >
> >> > Of course it "counts" -  as part of the cost of producting labor
> >> > power, but not in the production of surplus value because
> >no surplus
> >> > value is realized in the sale of labor power. As pointed out below.
> >>
> >> I accept no surplus value is realised in the sale of the
> >labour-power,
> >> but I'm arguing it is realised in the sale the commodity produced by
> >> that labour-power. Hence, by employing the graduate capital exploits
> >> both the graduate and the teacher.
> >
> >I don't see how you think this can occur. Let's take the
> >standard case with waged labor that produces surplus value.
> >The worker works with tools and raw materials and produces a
> >product (a good or a service). The value input into that
> >product is C+V+S, C from the tools and raw materials and V+S
> >from the worker. The S derives entirely from the activity of
> >the worker.
> >
> >Now let's back up the the chain, first with the means of
> >production, then with labor power, the two inputs. Case A and
> >Case B in what follows:
> >
> >Case A: the industrial circuit
> >In the case of the tools and raw materials they too were
> >produced by workers whose labor in producing them constituted
> >a value V+S added to the C of tool depreciation and raw
> >materials used up. Old value and new value added.
> >
> >Case B: the circuit of the reproduction of labor power
> >In the case of labor power, its value, like the value of the
> >means of production is the SNLT that goes into its cost of
> >reproduction. But what is the cost of its reproduction? First,
> >it's the value that capital has to allocate to its
> >reproduction: the value of the workers' food, housing,
> >clothing, etc., in other words the value of consumer goods and
> >services necessary for the workers' reproduction that the
> >worker pays for out of income. This is akin to C, it is, at
> >any given moment, tho subject to struggle and change, a given
> >cost - the relevant standard of living as measured by the
> >consumption of goods and services. It is old value. Second,
> >lets assume for the moment that the new labor, the labor of
> >reproduction - of cooking food, of cleaning clothing, of
> >teaching children - is akin to the new labor in the factory of
> >using tools to work up raw materials into new products. In the
> >factory that new labor adds to the old labor to become part of
> >the labor that constitutes the value of the final product. But
> >is this true with the labor of reproduction? Does cooking food
> >add to the value of labor power? No, we have already agreed
> >that it doesn't, indeed the greater the quantity of such work,
> >the lower the value of labor power needs to be, i.e., the
> >lower the value of the products capital needs to have workers
> >produce to provide for themselves. In the case cited, of food,
> >that unwaged domestic labor power means workers will consumer
> >less valuable food worked up at home instead of more valuable
> >food worked up in factories and bought ready made.
> >
> >So much for the first round. Now lets add a second cycle of
> >circulation to the first and examine how what goes on in the
> >first round appears in the second.
> >
> >Case A: The industrial circuit
> >The final value of the product of the first cycle is C+V+S and
> >that appears physically in the second cycle as either new
> >means of production (MP) or new means of subsistence (MS), or
> >some of each, bought by capitalists or workers as inputs into
> >either a new industrial cycle, or a new cycle of reproduction.
> >In either case the value is given, in the first case by C (for
> >the purchasing capitalist) and in the second case by V for the
> >purchasing workers who are spending their wages.
> >
> >Case B: The final value of the product - labor power - appears
> >physically in the second cycle embodied in a human being who
> >must be reproduced, again, and this embodied labor power (or
> >ability and willingness to work) must be bought by some
> >capitalist. Again, the value is given and is the amount V that
> >the capitalist must provide to the workers so that they can
> >purchase MS.
> >
> >Now you suggest that a surplus value is realized in the second
> >industrial cycle from the work of reproduction accomplished in
> >the first. So let's look at the relationship between those
> >two, first as things stand, second with some change in the
> >amount of work of reproduction in the first cycle.
> >
> >As things stand the work of reproduction in the first cycle
> >produces labor power of a certain productivity, just like the
> >industrial labor of the first cycle produces machines of a
> >certain productivity. However, in value terms those machines
> >and that labor power enter the second cycle at a given value -
> >the value the capitalist pays for their employment. Unlike the
> >machines, however, labor power may shirk or may be made to
> >work longer or more intensely so the value it adds is
> >variable. Therefore, it is clearly in the interest of the
> >capitalist that the work of reproduction (in both the previous
> >period and in the current period) be such as to result in more
> >rather than less work. If it results in more work, then,
> >ceteris paribus, it will result in more surplus labor (and
> >thus, filtered through SNLT, more surplus value). But, the
> >surplus value is the surplus labor performed in the this
> >second cycle. Any increase in the surplus labor is the
> >immediate result of more labor being performed by the workers
> >in the industrial circuit, not by a change in the amount of
> >reproductive labor.
> >
> >Let's look at what happens if there is a change in the amount
> >of reproductive labor in the circuit of the reproduction of
> >labor power. Let's suppose that a housewife, or a teacher,
> >works harder at those things which will result in the waged
> >worker working more, or more productively. (Let's leave aside
> >for the moment the question of whether it is possible either
> >to identify "those things" or to measure them.)
> >
> >Now, my reading of your statement that "I'm arguing [surplus
> >value] is realised in the sale the commodity produced by that
> >labour-power" can be interpreted to mean either or both of two
> >things. Either the increased work of the worker in
> >reproduction will be "realized", as it were, in the increased
> >work of the worker in industry or that the increased work of
> >the worker in reproduction will be realized in an increased
> >productivity on the part of that worker. Increased work time
> >or intensity would result in more absolute surplus value;
> >increased productivity would result in more relative surplus value.
> >
> >In the first case, where the work of the worker in
> >reproduction results in the reproduced worker working harder
> >(longer or more intensely) the extra surplus value comes from
> >the greater labor of the harder working industrial worker.
> >That greater labor may be the result of the efforts of
> >reproductive workers but it is not THEIR labor, it is that of
> >the industrial worker.
> >
> >The second of these cases: if the work of the worker in
> >reproduction results in higher productivity of the worker in
> >industry, then the situation is parallel to what happens in
> >Case A of two industrial circuits where the production of a
> >more productive machine in the first cycle, bought up and put
> >to work in the second, results in higher productivity and
> >greater relative surplus value. Yes, there is greater surplus
> >value but the surplus derives not from the work of producing
> >the more productive machine but from the work of those who use
> >it in such a way as to lower their own value (by producing
> >lower per unit value consumer goods). So while the work of the
> >worker in reproduction that resulted in a more productive
> >worker may raise relative surplus value, that increase of
> >surplus value still derives from the labor of the more
> >productive worker.
> >
> >All of which shows, as far as I can see, the relationship
> >between the work of producing labor power and the consequences
> >for the "production" of surplus value. In no case is there any
> >mechanism by which a "surplus labor" of a worker in
> >reproduction shows up as part of the "surplus labor" embodied
> >in a commodity produced by the "produced" worker.
> >
> >H.
> >
> >
> >
> >     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
> >
>
>
>      --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
>

............................................................................
Snail-mail:
Harry Cleaver
University of Texas at Austin
Department of Economics
BRB 1.116
1 University Station, C3100
Austin, Texas 78712-0301  USA

Phone Numbers:
(hm)  (512) 442-5036
(off) (512) 475-8535
Fax:(512) 471-3510

E-mail:
hmcleave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Cleaver homepage:
http://www.eco.utexas.edu/facstaff/Cleaver/index.html

Chiapas95 homepage:
http://www.eco.utexas.edu/facstaff/Cleaver/chiapas95.html
............................................................................



     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---