Re: Labour aristocracy

From: Paul Zarembka (zarembka@BUFFALO.EDU)
Date: Tue Jan 06 2004 - 23:19:56 EST

--On Tuesday, January 06, 2004 2:07 PM +0000 Simon Mohun
<s.mohun@QMUL.AC.UK> wrote:

> 1. I think of the rate of surplus value as an overall macroeconomic
> category applying to the whole economy, and not applicable to individual
> production processes. (But I know that many disagree with this.)


I'm not sure what you mean when you say that s.v. may not be applicalbe to
individual production processes -- you're thinking of value/value-form
issues, the transformation problem?

> 2. Given 1, then the issue revolves round comparisons of productivity.
> Have you got a citation for the US study?

Rather than the U.S. Senate, it was U.S. Tariff Commission, "Economic
factors affecting the Use of Items 807.00 and 806.30 of the Tariff
Schedules of the U.S." Washington, D.C., TC Publications 339, 1970.

I'm still rather astonished that you could be thinking that U.S. workers
may be more exploited the Third World workers.  I don't get it.  If wages
are 5-20% of the U.S. levels, how is productivity in mfg. going to be 20 to
5 times higher in the U.S. when evidence suggests +/- 10% differentials.
There's a whole movement about what workers in El Salvador, Bangladesh,
etc. experience and its unbelievable (and I'm not glorifying U.S. working
class conditions in writing this).  They maybe work 14 hours and get back
20 minutes.


RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY,  Paul Zarembka, editor, Elsevier Science

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jan 08 2004 - 00:00:00 EST