my own thought wandered to a classic piece I rarely read mentioned here, Richard Edwards' Contest Terrain. Edwards examines the social relations of productions in the 20th c. That is, he looks at changes in the social relations that take place in the workplace, not at the change from craft production to mass production. Which is to say, he's arguing that it is not technology that matters here so much but that it must always be analyzed dialectically to see the relationship between technology and the social relations associated with it. It is in the change in the social relations where we can look to understand how capital extracts profit by restructuring the social relations of production (which is given too little attention -- I think).
"it is only in the context of class relations that the roles of technology and efficiency can be interpreted," he wrote.
at any rate, I thought of this because I caught some heat some months when, talking about the sociology of power, readers disagreed with my argument that the least efficient method of extracting labor is through the use of direct force. They felt that the threat of physical force was the best way to extract labor power. I explained that, no, research showed that it was ultimately inefficient and costly, force was the least effective. More effective was the lure of money and yet even more effective was getting people to feel they identify with an employer, profession, or craft -- which oftenmeans that an employer must give up a little power to get back even more from labor.
So, I'm curious if there's any research to back this up Doug -- the stuff about prison labor.
At 03:48 PM 12/14/2006, Jerry Monaco wrote:
>_But my basic question was more along the lines of "Why should we
>accept that this kind of degradation of tools and beasts is the
>general tendency of all slave systems?"_
"You know how it is, come for the animal porn, stay for the cultural analysis." -- Michael Berube
Bitch | Lab http://blog.pulpculture.org