[Marxism] Re: Marxism] Measuring Marx's value categories - a quick introduction

["Jurriaan Bendien" <andromeda246@xxxxxxxxx>]

><<I think maybe you are conflating "value of labor-power" with "variable
capital".>> Perhaps.  Would you differentiate.  

Reply:

Labor-power is a special kind of commodity, because we're talking living human 
subjects who are not just valued but also value themselves, and assert that 
value, individually or collectively. Thus, while we might frame some economic 
laws defining the limits within which the value of this commodity can move (an 
overall, existing cost structure of goods and services that make up a 
lifestyle), its value is at least partly established through the owners 
asserting its value. The value of labor-power refers to an historically 
established, average social norm applying to the reproduction cost of that 
labor-power, on the basis of the given level of productivity reached by a 
society. Wage-costs may rise above, or fall below that norm. In a worst case 
scenario, like maybe in Bolivian tin mines during certain years, or in 
Auschwitz 1943, labor-power becomes expendable, i.e. when the worker dies 
through superexploitation, they just get another one. In a best case scenario 
(full employment), wages squeeze profits to the point where employers go out of 
business. The path of "normal capitalism" is usually somewhere between those 
extremes. Consequently, the variable capital outlay may contingently be higher 
or lower than the value of labor-power, i.e. above or below the social norm. 
But that norm is not completely "objective", it is open to perpetual contest 
and debate, to conflicts between social classes. Marx thus refers to the 
"historical and moral" dimensions of the value of labor-power.

You might well ask, what is "real" about a real wage ? Quite so. You have to 
look at taxes, inflation and benefits to work it out, and it's often not so 
easy to find a quick answer.

>Also, uncertain as to how it is that your references to "non-wage income (e.g. 
>benefit payments)"  relate.  Help.

Reply:

Suppose a worker is sick and cannot work. That's a cost. Who pays for it ? 
Three main possibilities: the worker himself and/or his family; the employer; 
or the state. Next question is, where does the money come from to pay for that 
cost ? Again three possibilities. It gets quite complicated, because of the 
transactions involved, i.e. who pays for what. A worker might take out his own 
health insurance if he can afford it or if he is legally required to do it, 
from the state or the private sector. The employer might pay for a health plan. 
Or the state might unilaterally subsidize the cost. To get a "net" cost, you 
have to subtract benefit received, from costs incurred. But however you 
calculate that net cost, it's part of the value of labor-power from the point 
of view of society as a whole. Whether it is part of variable capital, depends 
on whether the employer pays for it. Variable capital is labor functioning as 
capital, i.e. labor valorising capital, increasing its value. If for example 
that labor is withdrawn, capital is no longer valorised and may indeed decline 
in value. Often economists will equate variable capital with wage-costs for 
productive labor, but that's basically a short-hand for taling about it, i.e. 
the capital outlay on labor which augments total capital tied up in the sphere 
of production.

Postmodern times add complexity to the subject, because there seem to be so 
many more exchanges in the marketplace these days, through which the value of 
labor-power is or can be asserted... :-) Sometimes it can get really difficult 
to figure out where people get their income from anyway. But the core 
relationships of it remain the same, whatever status people might wheedle 
themselves into through various routes. There is a basic cost, and somebody 
must pay for it, even although we might have a devil of a job wading through 
the legal-bureaucratic rigmarole figuring out who actually does pay for it.

One of the Western intellects who has done the most thinking about this topic 
is Prof. Ian Gough at the University of Bath. 
http://staff.bath.ac.uk/hssirg/ He's written extensively on the welfare state 
and human needs. On the "social wage", see also 
http://homepage.newschool.edu/%7EAShaikh/welfare_state.pdf and
 http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/1223/krnknsocw_wp.html

Prof. Shaikh argues that basically the US government doesn't really pay a net 
"social wage" to workers since the working class pays in approximately just as 
much as the government pays out. This might be true, but of course the social 
security levy is redistributed among workers, some of whom claim a lot, and 
others nothing. That's the point of social insurance - if all chip in a little 
bit, all are insured for serious calamities. The neoliberals then argue it's 
bureaucratic, inefficient and open to abuse, ergo, we ought to privatise the 
lot - one market for all under God, and each man for himself. Problem there is, 
that workers must then chip in more than "just a bit" in which case many cannot 
afford it. Then, the neoliberals argue we need a "social safety net" for worst 
case scenarios, i.e. people who genuinely cannot help themselves. But behind 
that dispute is the battle over the value of labor-power and labor-market 
segmentation... The cost is still there, all that is happening is that the 
burden of paying for it is shifted around, and, normally, it shifts to those 
who are least able to resist paying for it. As I said, part of the value of 
labor-power depends on human subjects asserting its value.

The historical growth of state taxation & expenditure reflects in good part the 
objective socialisation of economic life created by the expansion of market 
relations, i.e. more and more interdependencies created among people. Quite 
simply, there are more things that have to be regulated. This makes it often 
quite difficult to understand how we should evaluate costs & benefits for state 
expenditure, and part of the difficulty concerns the moral or human norms that 
should apply. But behind that moral debate, Marxists would point out, there are 
conflicting interests between different social classes, each of whom has their 
own agenda, and their own idea of "the good society". What the state does, is 
mediate in that conflict... but not entirely neutrally, and sometimes very far 
from it, since whoever has their hands on the purse-strings of the state, 
wields the sceptre of power there.

Hope this helps,

Jurriaan








_______________________________________________
Marxism mailing list
Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism