IMPORTANT: If you cite this message, OPE-L policy requires you not to reveal the identity of the author.
You may cite this message only if you do not disclose who wrote it.
Sorry I cut this reply to 3415 out when editing
Paul C claimed:
>What Taylor was quantifying was exactly Marx's simple average labour.
Taylor could not have done this himself. Marx clearly argues in the paragraph which you quote that reduction of skilled or intensified labor into a specific quantity of simple labor is established by a SOCIAL process that goes on behind the backs of the producers. And this would include Taylor's (back). He can't effect the reduction or conversion by himself; this social process happens in the market.
The fact that it usually went on behind the backs of employers did not prevent it from being discoverable. That was the point of Taylors Scientific Management, to discover by systematic experiment what would otherwise have been left to ad hoc rules of thumb guided by market prices.
Taylors experiments of course involve assumptions about the basic technology available being the same to different producers. A work study of labour required in hand loom weaving would be superceeded once power looms came in.
- [OPE-L:3426] Re: Re: Re: Gil's criticisms, (continued)
- [OPE-L:3426] Re: Re: Re: Gil's criticisms, Patrick L. Mason Fri 02 Jun 2000, 17:56 GMT
- [OPE-L:3427] Re: Re: Re: Re: Gil's criticisms, Gil Skillman Fri 02 Jun 2000, 18:23 GMT
- [OPE-L:3424] Re: Re: objectivity of value, JERRY LEVY Fri 02 Jun 2000, 16:34 GMT
- [OPE-L:3422] objectivity of value, Rakesh Bhandari Fri 02 Jun 2000, 15:34 GMT
- [OPE-L:3436] Re: objectivity of value, Paul Cockshott Mon 05 Jun 2000, 12:11 GMT
- [OPE-L:3421] objectivity of value, Rakesh Bhandari Fri 02 Jun 2000, 15:31 GMT
- [OPE-L:3435] Re: objectivity of value, Paul Cockshott Mon 05 Jun 2000, 12:06 GMT
- [OPE-L:3419] Re: Gil's criticisms, glevy Fri 02 Jun 2000, 14:49 GMT
- [OPE-L:3412] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: measurement of value, Rakesh Bhandari Thu 01 Jun 2000, 20:31 GMT