>>> 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.
>>
>>Good for whom, Angela? Not for labor.
Jim Heartfield responds:
>Not immediately for labour, maybe. But labour gains by the increase in
>productive capacity that lays down the basis for a transformation of the
>social basis of exploitation. In the here and now, labour increases its
>consumption in use values, what Marx calls a basic civilising tendency
>of capitalism, even if this is accompanied by a less advantageous
>division of the social product overall.
I agree in principle, Jim. But it's not a necessity; it doesn't always work that way. Although productivity gains may enhance the basket of goods (use values), labor increases its consumption only if real wages rise. Until very recently (last year or two), by many measures real wages have been stagnant or falling since the early 70s.
It *is* true that, over time, the improvement in consumption goods due to productivity gains raises the floor below which wages can't reasonably be driven (v in Marx), and so gradually raises living standards for labor. What we have been seeing in the last 25 years, however, is capital's success in driving wages toward v, taking back some of the gains labor had made before that.
Not sure what you mean by the broader statement that productivity gains produce "the basis for a transformation of the social basis of exploitation". That's not always good for labor, is it?