[OPE-L:5465] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: More Intense Labor

From: Gerald_A_Levy (Gerald_A_Levy@email.msn.com)
Date: Mon Apr 30 2001 - 00:31:31 EDT

Re Rakesh's [5464]:

> >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?
> In my opinion nlt remains 4 while (assuming a
> doubling of intensity)
> snlt goes to 12. What I am saying is that nlt
> could not remain 4 with  a doubling of intensity.

Your second sentence directly contradicts your

Your first sentence CAN NOT be right: i.e.
in the example above an 8 hour working day
is assumed.

This is not a hard problem. To explain why the
answer to the above question MUST BE
nlt = 2 hours + slt = 6 hours, please consider
again what has happened:

-- since labor intensity has doubled, it means
HOURS, the output of the SAME AMOUNT
OF WORKERS has doubled. I.e. the
measured by output/worker hr.) has
doubled. This is why an increase in the
intensity of labor MUST be considered to be
a form of relative surplus value. It is true
nonetheless that this does *not* constitute the
*primary* form of how relative surplus value
can be increased under capitalism and that there
are natural and social limits to how far the
intensity of labor can be increased that are not 
the  case with labor-saving technical change.

In solidarity, Jerry

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed May 02 2001 - 00:00:06 EDT