>>> 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).
Yes, we are talking about different things. I was commenting on your statement that shortening of labor time was a good thing, but in the context of productivity gains due to technological gains in the means of production. That's why I referred to shortening of time per unit of output. I didn't realize you were confining your point to "momentary shortenings", such as taylorism, etc.
>
>>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.
I don't think so. Surplus value has never been limited by labor time. In his time, for example, Marx saw the introduction of massive amounts of machinery into the production process. He set out to explain this effect on the mass of surplus value and the rate of profit, leading to the laws of motion, and particularly the tendency of the profit rate to fall (together with the 6 counteracting tendencies to arrest that tendency)(Vol. 3, Chap. XIV).
>
>>>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.
When I say "private property", I simply mean ownership and control by one group or class, to the exclusion of another group or class. That ownership provides the basis for capital's claim to all of the surplus value created. That is the defining distinction of capitalism: the unequal exchange in the labor market where workers receive wages they must spend to live (reproduce themselves), while capital accumulates wealth. This is an expression of the value form Marx devised to analyse capitalism as a system (s+c+v). Not exchange value.
Abolition of this form of private property abolishes capitalism as a system.
>
>angela
>
>