Date: Thu Jan 23 2003 - 09:37:16 EST
Quoting firstname.lastname@example.org: > > Yes but capital must keep a tight lid on the wage demands of > those workers paid out of surplus value--unproductive, albeit > oppressed, workers as Carchedi puts it--if the reproduction of total > social capital is to yield a positive uniform rate of profit across all > its sectors--industrial, commercial and financial. Capital pays to all > these workers--exploited productive and oppressed > unproductive--only that wage which allows for the reproduction of > labor power and the continuous expenditure of labor. The unity of > the working class is thus founded on their wages (collectively and > individually) being driven to the reproduction costs of labor power. > Capital relies on this whether the workers are productive or > unproductive. > By your reasoning, productive laborers would have an interest in > driving the wages of unproductive labor below the value of its labor > power in order to prevent capital from having to do the same to > their own wages as a countertendency to FROP. Or by your > reasoning productive labor should welcome the automation of > fnancial and circulation activity without any social insurance for the > technologically unemployed because such insurance would only > deprive capital of surplus value that it will have to try to win back by > accentuating the exploitatoin of productive labor. This is an econmistic response. It is predicated on the continued existence of capitalism. What I am pointing out is that a contradiction between private sector unproductive workers and other workers is likely to come about when a socialist government sets about abolishing the financial sector.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jan 24 2003 - 00:00:01 EST