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

["michael a. lebowitz" <mlebowit@xxxxxx>]

At 09:43 23/11/2003 -0500, jerry wrote:

> 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).
>  
> I

What do I think of that proposition? I think you understand Marx's
position (although I'm sure you meant to write 'has NOT grown'). Here's a
quote from pp. 114-5 in my chapter, "Wages" in the new edition.
The quotes from Marx are from MECW, vol 34 and Capital I:

        ?Finally the third CASE?, where productivity (q) and the standard of necessity (U) rise at the same rate:

The worker continues to receive the same value--- or the objectification of the same part of the working day--- as before. In this case, because the productivity of labour has risen, the quantity of use values he receives, his real wage, has risen, but its value has remained constant, since it continues to represent the same quantity of realised labour time as before. In this case, however, the surplus value too remains unchanged, there is no change in the ratio between the wage and the surplus value, hence the proportion [of surplus value] to the wage remains unchanged (Marx, 1994:65-6).
In short, in this case, ?there would be no CHANGE in surplus value, although the latter would represent, just as wages would, a greater quantity of use values than before? (Marx, 1994: 66).
        In Capital, this third case in which both capitalist and worker may obtain more use-values without any change in surplus value is introduced as follows:

Now, if the productivity of labour were to be doubled without any alteration in the ratio between necessary labour and surplus labour, there would be no change in the magnitude either of the surplus-value or of the price of labour-power. The only result would be that each of these would represent twice as many use-values as before, and that each use-value would be twice as cheap as it was before (Marx, 1977: 659).
Thus, remove the assumption of fixity in the standard of necessity and the possibility of a quite different story emerges--- an increase in productivity with no change in surplus value.

        

in
solidarity,

        

michael

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

Michael A. Lebowitz

Professor Emeritus

Economics Department

Simon Fraser University

Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6

Office Fax:   (604) 291-5944

Home:   Phone (604) 689-9510