Re: Re: RE: Relative and absolute surplus value

[ALI KADRI <akadri_00@xxxxxxxxx>]

would that not be all relative in real time.
--- Michael Perelman <michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> Think of the working day of the working class as a
> whole taken as a single
> worker.
>
> Surplus value reflects the quantity of the working
> day that goes to the
> surplus.  Absolute surplus value increases by
> increasing the working day.
> Relative surplus value increases by decreasing to
> part of the working day that
> goes to producing wage goods.
>
> Relative surplus value can increase either by
> decreasing wages or increasing
> productivity.  Marx is not entirely consistent, but
> he usually treats wages as a
> constant.
>
> One area is murky.  The working day can increase
> either by expanding the hours
> or by decreasing the breaks in the working day.  To
> the extent that this
> strategy represents increased efficiency, you might
> think that it would increase
> relative surplus value, should also make the case
> that it reflects an increase
> in absolute surplus value.
>
> "Devine, James" wrote:
>
> > I wrote: >>> ... The businesses have switched from
> relative surplus-value
> > extraction (technical progress, mechanization) to
> absolute surplus-value
> > extraction (wage cuts, speed-up, stretch-out) as
> the main mode. ...<<<
> >
> > Michael Perelman wrote: >>Wage cuts are part of
> relative s.v., but you are
> > right about the imbalance. ...<<
> >
> > Charles Brown writes:> Just a small technical
> note. I understand absolute
> > surplus-value as obtained by lengthening the work
> day.  Overtime seems to
> > being cut back now.<
> >
> > When Marx discussed these issues, he was dealing
> with the simple situation
> > when workers were paid by the day (which was quite
> relevant at the time). In
> > that case, stretching out the length of the
> work-day (perhaps by shortening
> > breaks) means that the hours of work-time per
> dollar of pay falls. This
> > raises the rate of surplus-value (total
> profits/total wage bill), as Marx
> > argues.
> >
> > Nowadays, blue-collar workers are mostly paid by
> the hour, usually with some
> > higher rate for over-time (though there are
> exceptions), such as time and a
> > half for overtime. A longer work-day may thus not
> raise the rate of
> > surplus-value, since the wage paid per hour rises
> (or at least stays
> > constant). The exception is if the boss cheated
> (i.e., has workers work
> > without pay).
> >
> > This "cheating" seems the _norm_ these days for
> white-collar (salaried)
> > workers, who are paid by the year or the month or
> the week and have to
> > fulfill specific responsibilities: more
> responsibility is piled on the
> > salaried workers, without increasing their pay.
> (This coincides with the
> > laying-off of the salaried workers with less
> seniority or less clout with
> > the boss or whatever.)
> >
> > Return to the waged (blue-collar or pink-collar)
> workers: if OT is cut back,
> > this may help the rate of surplus-value, if the
> wage paid per hour falls
> > (since OT pay isn't being paid anymore). This can
> coincide with _greater _
> > work-time for the salaried employees. I think this
> is what's happening right
> > now, though I don't have the evidence at hand.
> >
> > >Speed up and other productivity increases would
> be relative surplus value
> > extraction,no?<
> >
> > When Marx discussed these issues, he assumed that
> what economists call the
> > "real wage" was constant (as Mike Lebowitz
> argues). Then, absolute
> > surplus-value extraction means getting more work
> per paid time period. This
> > could involve getting more work-time out of the
> paid time period (as with
> > the discussion of stretch-out above) or getting
> more work-effort out of the
> > work-time spent (increasing the intensity of
> labor, or speed-up). Relative
> > surplus-value comes from mechanization and the
> like, which allows
> > work-effort to be more productive, lowering the
> societal cost of the real
> > wages. Of course, absolute and relative
> surplus-value get mixed up when
> > mechanization raises the intensity of labor.
> >
> > It gets even more confusing when we drop Marx's
> constant real wage
> > assumption. Are real wage cuts part of absolute
> surplus-value extraction (as
> > I asserted) or relative surplus-value extraction
> (as Michael suggests)?
> >
> > I guess we could spend a lot of time splitting
> hairs on this issue. Though I
> > would be interested to find out if Marx wrote
> anything definitive on these
> > confusions (and I can't think of anyone more able
> to find it than Michael),
> > my interpretation is in terms of the broad sweep
> of Marx's CAPITAL rather
> > than the details. I interpret absolute
> surplus-value extraction as being
> > technologically "backward," getting more out of
> workers without making
> > labor-effort more productive, and relative
> surplus-value extraction as being
> > technologically "progressive," as making
> labor-effort more productive.
> > ("Progressive" here is like "productive" in Marx's
> theory: it's defined from
> > capital's point of view. However, a future
> socialism might benefit from its
> > labor-efforts being made more productive.)
> >
> > In the end, the meaning of the distinction
> shouldn't depend on "what Marx
> > said," since Marx was wrong once or twice. It
> should depend on how
> > theoretically and empirically useful the
> distinction is, how it fits with a
> > holistic/dialectical perspective, and how it helps
> guide practice.
> >
> > Jim Devine jdevine@xxxxxxx &
> http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
>
> --
>
> Michael Perelman
> Economics Department
> California State University
> Chico, CA 95929
>
> Tel. 530-898-5321
> E-Mail michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month.
http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1