(OPE-L) Re: indirect labor, the real wage, and the production of surplus value

[gerald_a_levy <gerald_a_levy@xxxxxxx>]

Mike L wrote:

 

> What does the composition of capital have to do with Marx's

> discussion of the theory of relative surplus value in Vol. I, Ch. 13?

 

It has to do with whether real wages will rise when there is an increase

in productivity.

 

>        I have no difficulty in seeing the relevance of changes in TCC.

> That, in fact, is my point in asking people to distinguish between the

> case of productivity increases that drop from the sky (Vol I, Ch13)

> and those that occur through the displacement of workers by machines.

> Specifically, what I have argued in the book is: 'The basis, in short, for

> relative surplus value is not the growth in productivity.... Only an increased

> degree of separation among workers initiated by the introduction of machinery

> ensures that productivity will rise relative to the real wage ' (115).

 

Yes,  but I think it is also fair to say that an increase in productivity is an

*_expression_*  of the increase in relative surplus value. 

 

What do you think of the following proposition?  When there isn't a given

real wage, relative surplus value  becomes _relative_ in the following sense: 

if real wages increase at a rate equal to the rate of growth of productivity then

(additional) relative surplus value doesn't emerge since necessary labour time

as a proportion of the total working day has grown and there is thus no increase

in surplus labour time and hence no (additional) relative surplus value. (this was

the meaning of a somewhat cryptic 1-line post I sent on 11/12).

 

In solidarity, Jerry