[OPE-L:5276] how is SNLT measured?

["Gerald_A_Levy" <Gerald_A_Levy@xxxxxxx>]

As we know, it is only *socially-necessary-labor

time* (SNLT), i.e. abstract labor, that creates

value.

 

How is SNLT measured?

 

Can it be simply measured with a stopwatch using

standard units of time, i.e. weeks, hours, minutes,

seconds,  fractions of a second, etc.?  I think not.

 

To explain just *one problem* now with this

measurement of SNLT: as we know "the time

spent in production counts only in so far as it

is socially necessary for the production of a use-

value" (Vol 1, Penguin ed., p. 303). This, Marx

writes, has "various consequences."  One such

consequence is that the labour-power must be

of "normal effectiveness": "In the trade in which

it is being employed, it must possess the average

skill, dexterity and speed prevalent in that trade,

and our capitalist must take care to buy labour-

power of such normal quality. It must be expended

with the average amount of exertion and the usual

degree of intensity; and the capitalist is as careful

to see that this is done, as he is to ensure that the

workmen are not idle for a single moment. He has

bought the use of the labour-power for a definite

period, and he insists on his rights. He has no

intention of being robbed" (Ibid).

 

Of course, the capitalist has no intention of being

robbed. But that is rather besides the point, isn't

it?

 

The presumption above is that there tends to be

an average intensity of labor established in any

trade. Is this the case?  It must be *tautologically

true* that there is an "average" even if it is difficult --

or impossible! -- to measure.

 

How would you go about "timing" the average?

What has to be remembered is that one can not

time abstract labour, one can only time how long

it takes for individual workers to perform specific

tasks. Thus, with Taylorism, one can time different

workers performing the same job. However, with

the division of labor, individual workers do not

in general perform exactly the same job (i.e.

set of tasks).  Rather, specialization results in

workers, say on an assembly line, performing

different tasks.  How then does one gauge the

"speed" of the worker?  If all workers had the

same physiology and metabolism (which, of

course, they don't) then one might be able to

use a proxy like a timing of the heartbeat (pulse).

 

When we consider the matter *regionally and

internationally*, we can observe a *very* wide

range in terms of the intensity of labor both

within the same branch of production and in

different branches of production.  This is a matter

that is well known to many trade unionists: i.e.

even if they can't directly calculate SNLT, they

*know* that the intensity of labor is greater (or

lesser) at different plants, in different regions, and

in different countries.  Indeed, I can verify from

personal experience that the intensity of labor

can vary very significantly at: a) plants operated

by different capitalist firms in close geographic

proximity to each other (e.g. a Ford and a GM

assembly plant located about 10 miles away from each other on the same road -- Rt. 1 in NJ);

b) at plants operated by the same company in the

same nation and/or region (e.g. the GMAD plants

in Linden and Tarrytown); and c) even in the SAME

plant (and indeed, most workers at an individual

plant often know for which jobs the intensity of

labor is lower and, consequently, which jobs are

more "desirable" for that reason). When one

compares the intensity of labor in different

capitalist nations (with, consequently, *different

cultures and histories of class struggle*) then the

presumption that there is a standard (as distinct

from average) intensity of labor internationally

becomes untenable.

 

That being the case: how can SNLT be measured?

 

Who has a solution for the "SNLT problem"?  If

one were to say that SNLT is, and can only be,

measured by money (the value-form position),

then this would be one solution. Do others agree

with *that* solution or do they see problems with it?

If, on the other hand, one views abstract labour

*only* in terms of the physiological expenditure of

labor time, then I don't think one has come to terms with the importance of *socially necessary* labor time.

 

In solidarity, Jerry