OPE-L
mailing list archive
[ Other Periods  | Other mailing lists  | Search  ]
Date:  [ Previous  | Next  ]      Thread:  [ Previous  | Next  ]      Index:  [ Author  | Date  | Thread  ]

IMPORTANT: If you cite this message, OPE-L policy requires you not to reveal the identity of the author.

Re: indirect labor, the real wage, and the production of surplus value

You may cite this message only if you do not disclose who wrote it. 

At 22:27 23/11/2003 -0800, ajit wrote:

 from the
begining I have been saying that your argument or the
problem is running in a circle. Once you say that the
real wage is determined by the class struggle or the
degree of separation of the workers, then you cannot
say that now I want to see how the real wages would
behave when the degree of separation remains constant
and some other variable changes. Because if the real
wage was only the function of the degree of separation
of the workers then once it is held constant then
there is no theoretical reason for it to change.


Ajit,
        I don't think I have ever said that the real wage 'was ONLY a
function of the degree of separation of the workers'. If I had, then of
course your point would be valid. But, if this were my position, why would
I constantly be proposing that if productivity rises (and thus the values
of wage goods falls), then IF the degree of separation of workers is
constant, real wages will rise? The argument is basically summed up on pp.
216 as follows:

U= Bq/X, where U, B, q and X are the real wage(U), a constant (B),
productivity(q) and the degree of separation of workers (X).

        The condition for a constant real wage, then, is that the degree
of separation rises at the same rate as productivity. The condition for ANY
relative surplus value is that the degree of separation (which impacts the
money wage inversely) rise. While one can make a case for relative surplus
value where there is substitution of machinery for workers, I would suggest
it is rather difficult to do so if productivity rises drop from the sky
(ie., are not accompanied by the rise in the technical composition); in
short, an essential premise for relative surplus value is obscured by the
ASSUMPTION of a given real wage. You can see the argument in the book.
Also, I just discovered with joy that Vol. 34 of MECW is on-line at
marxists.org (one less book to carry with me as I travel about!), so you
can see Marx's points on pp. 65-6.
        I hope I've clarified my argument now, and that my argument no
longer looks circular.
        cheers,
        michael



 Thus
when you say that you want to see how the real wages
would change when some other variable, in this case
labor productivity, changes, you are in effect saying
that the real wages are determined by two factors (1)
the degree of separation of the workers, and the other
variable, in this case the productivity of the labor.
Now given this, when you read out the changes in the
real wage due to changes in the productivity of labor,
given the separation of workers constant, you are in
effect drawing a relationship between the real wages
and the labor productivity. So your theory simply says
that labor productivity has positive impact on real
wages, it is not drawing any implication of what
happens if the degree of separation remains constant,
it is not throwing any light on the question of degree
of separation of the workers and its relation to real
wages.

Now let me try to make a case for you: I think you
need to argue that labor productivity affects degree
of separation, and for your kind of hypothesis,
positively. So when labor productivity rises, the
degree of separation increases, which in turn raises
the real wage. In this case your degree of separation
is not given by the rate of surplus value. So you have
a job cut our for you. First of all you will have to
develop some way of measuring or quantifying the
degree of separation of workers (s/v will not do, can
only create circularity in your argument). Then you
will have to develop a theory that shows how labor
productivity affects the degree of separation, and
then develop a theory of real wages that shows how
real wages are determined by degree of separation. So
the dominant causality runs from labor productivity to
degree of separation to real wages. I hope this is of
some help. Cheers, ajit sinha
> ---------------------
> 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


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/


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

[ Other Periods  | Other mailing lists  | Search  ]