Re Rakesh's : > Jerry, I don't think so. If an unintensified hour > counts as an hour of social labor, then an > intensified hour is really more than an hour > of socially necessary labor time. Rakesh, an "unintensified hour" is a meaningless abstraction. *Every* labor hour is performed to *some* level of intensity. Indeed, an "unintensified hour" is inconsistent with the very possibility of labor time. Viewed at from the system as a whole, one can then see that at any moment in time there is an *average ("customary") intensity of labor* in different societies and that individual intensities of labor at particular worksites are either higher or lower than this average. An empirical problem, though, is that there is no meaningful and accurate measure for calculating labor intensity. > Over the > long term an intensification of the labor process > is not a strong > foundation on which to build a reduction in necessary labor time. That's not the question. The question is whether an increase in the intensity of labor results in a reduction of necessary labor time (and thereby an increase in surplus labor time). Consider the following simple example. Assume an 8 hour working day in which necessary labor time = 4 hours and surplus labor time = 4 hours. Now double the labor intensity in the example above. How does that change the numbers for nlt and slt? > This is assuming that the real wage can remain > constant with an > intensification of the labor process. There's no reason to suppose that real wages will _necessarily_ increase with an increase in the intensity of labor (a point I discussed with Gil). > This is a very interesting point. As a counter- > tendency, intensification however seems to be > quite limited as workers will > rebel in one of many ways against a reduction of > the wage below the > value of labor power. Well ... as expressed previously, an intensification of labor does not necessarily reduce the wage. As for whether a reduction in wages is "quite limited" as a 'counteracting factor', see Vol 3, Ch. 14, Section 2 in which Marx specifically identifies a reduction in wages below their value as "one of the most important factors stemming the tendency for the rate of profit to fall." In solidarity, Jerry PS: I'll get back to the thread on turnover at a later time. Now it's time for me to get some sun and attend a "May Day" (celebrated a couple days early) concert in Tompkins Square Park.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed May 02 2001 - 00:00:06 EDT