i'd written:
>> the shortening of necessary
>>labour time is a good thing isn't it? the problem consists in
whether
>>or not this is attached to a limitless lengthening of surplus
labour,
>>as it is now.
roger replied:
>Good for whom, Angela? Not for labor. The shortening of necessary
labor
>time due to technological change, *per unit of output*, raises the
rate of
>exploitation (s/v) and allows for the creation of surplus value on an
>expanding scale. It allows for increasing the mass of surplus value,
all of
>which is controlled, in one sense or another, by capital, relative to
the
>reproduction cost of labor. But shortening of labor time has no
necessary
>connection to time actually worked, or to wages or income per worker.
No
>necessary connection to wages, that is, unless you believe the
fiction that
>wages have something to do with labor's marginal productivity, ala
the
>neoclassical model.
roger, i fear you have misconstrued what i said. didn't i say the issue was whether or not a shortening of labour time was attached to a limitless lengthening of surplus value? but perhaps there is a slight difference here. as far as i can tell, the struggle to shorten labour time preceded (at least here) the series of techniques introduced which enabled a momentary shortening of necessary labour as a proportion of overal time worked: fordism, mass education, taylorism, etc. ie., taylorism (and what might be called, broadly, a keynsian settlement) were responses to this movement to shorten necessary labour time. so, yes, you are right to point out that a shortening of labour time has no necessary connection to wages; but i made no statement that the wage was the price of labour. however, it remains important to point to struggles over the relative proportions, and even that they are distinguishable (politically).
>Surplus value is not limited by labor time.
maybe we could say instead: surplus value is no longer limited by direct labour time. then, i'd agree.
>>which raises the question: is communism defined by the abolition of
>>private property or the abolition of the value form? the latter is
>>certainly not reducible to the former.
>
>Communism can be defined as the abolition of private property *in the
means
>of production* (only). That, I think, is synonymous with elimination
of the
>value form.
i am not sure how you use these terms here that would specify 'private property in the means of production' as not simply a question of distribution or of exchange values.
angela