[OPE-L:5302] how simple is 'simple labour' in dynamic analysis?

["Gerald_A_Levy" <Gerald_A_Levy@xxxxxxx>]

How 'simple' is 'simple average labour'?  Consider

the following -- especially the part that I have

capitalized:

 

------------------------------

"But the value of a commodity represents human

labour pure and simple, the expenditure of human

labour in general. And just as, in civil society, a

general or a banker plays a great part but man as

such plays a very mean part, so, here too, the same

is true of human labour. It is the expenditure of

simple labour-power, i.e. of the labour-power

possessed in his bodily organism by every ordinary

man, on the average, without being developed in

any special way. *Simple average labour*,  it is true,

VARIES IN CHARACTER IN DIFFERENT

COUNTRIES AND AT DIFFERENT CULTURAL

EPOCHS, BUT IN ANY PARTICULAR SOCIETY

IT IS GIVEN" (Marx, *Capital*, Vol. 1, Penguin

ed., p. 135, capitalization added for emphasis).

-----------------------------

 

One might infer from the above that for *STATIC

ANALYSIS OF A GIVEN SOCIETY*,  Marx is

saying that it is legitimate to consider 'simple

average labour' as GIVEN.

 

This raises more questions than it answers,

though:

 

 

1)  Is 'simple average labour' then to be understood

as SPECIFIC to a particular society?  This would

create problems for the understanding and

comparison of value in DIFFERENT societies, i.e.

INTERNATIONALLY.  *Even if* we, however,

understand a "particular society"   in a global

sense as the capitalist society in existence in the

world at a specific moment in time, that does not

resolve the next problem. But, before moving on,

I will ask you: 

 

 

*Should we consider a "particular society" to be

the society in existence within a given nation or

the world-wide capitalist society in existence?*

 

 

2) Marx clearly thinks that it is legitimate for

STATIC analysis to understand simple labour

as given. Should we also consider simple

labour as given for DYNAMIC ANALYSIS?

It would seem that Marx's answer, because he

recognizes that simple labour varies in character

"at different cultural epochs", would be: "NO"!

Or, at least,  it would suggest that if one's

dynamic analysis is of a sufficiently long period

that it *extends into different cultural epochs*,

then 'simple labour' can no longer be taken for

granted as being given.

 

 

It would seem, then, that 'simple labour' is no

longer simple under capitalism over a long historical

period.

 

 

* What, then, can cause 'simple average labour' to

change from one epoch of capitalism to another?

 

 

Marx doesn't answer the above question so here

are my preliminary thoughts:

 

 

a) a generalization of certain types of knowledge

by workers that capitalists, and society in general,

come to expect as normal and average. The

generalization of *literacy* might be thought of in

this manner. This generalization of literacy has

by no means proceeded rapidly or evenly

internationally, but we can observe a substantial

change from mid-19th to mid-20th Centuries.

 

 

b) long-term changes in diet, nutrition, and health 

that affect not only life expectancy but also

arguably the ability to create value. In general,

one might for instance expect that if workers are

healthier then they are more capable of working

intensively. Conversely, some dietary changes

that are *unhealthy* for workers might have the

same consequence (e.g. increases in sugar and

caffeine consumption). Thus, this might over the

very long-term affect SNLT. Of course, this is a

*very* uneven process internationally but

physical capabilities (in some societies, including

average height) have changed for workers over a

*very* long period.

 

 

c) Alongside the increase in women's employment

in the mid- to late 20th Century (and the modern

feminist movement), there have been cultural

changes that have promoted exercise and strength-

building for women. To the extent that this raises

the average physical ability of workers over the

long-term it could be seen as bringing about a

change in simple average labour.

 

 

d)  The spread of certain basic technologies related

to the health of the working class might be seen

as changing simple average labour over the very

long term.  E.g. how many millions of workers

in the 19th Century needed, but were unable to

obtain (i.e. afford),  eyeglasses to be able to see

properly?  Yet, now this has changed and it is

normally the case world-wide that workers who

need eyeglasses can be able to obtain them.

Hasn't this then raised the magnitude of value that 

is created by this 'simple' labour since there has

now been a change  in the capabilities of the

'average' labourer?

 

 

The above are *only examples* of how simple

labour can change over the course of capitalist

history. Other examples are thus possible.

 

 

* Do you agree that the above examples could be

seen as constituting a change in simple average labour?

 

 

* Can you think of any other historical examples of

how simple average labour has changed in capitalist

history?

 

 

* Does, this, then mean that in DYNAMIC

ANALYSIS we can no longer take it for granted

that simple labour is a given?

 

 

* If simple labor is not taken to be given

axiomatically in dynamic analysis, how should

it then be included in dynamic models? E.g.

should we views changes in simple labor as

occurring DISCONTINUOUSLY OR 

CONTINUOUSLY?  What are the implications

of each in terms of how we comprehend simple

labor changing historically?  If we model these

changes as happening discontinuously, should

we consider using a  "simple labor traverse" a

la Hicks (_Capital and Time_) and Lowe (The

Path of Economic Growth_)?

 

 

* Would this then mean that we must reject the

position that simple abstract labour creates the

same amount of value in all countries and all

periods of time?  I believe that position (i.e.

assumption and/or axiom) has been embodied

in certain dynamic analyses by Marxists, e.g. by

listmember Alan F.

 

Thoughts?

 

In solidarity, Jerry