tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post8434535261433526915..comments2024-03-17T00:23:24.896-07:00Comments on Social Democracy for the 21st Century: A Realist Alternative to the Modern Left: Marx’s Capital, Volume 1, Chapter 22: A Critical SummaryLord Keyneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-68079587613659701642016-04-08T08:36:49.860-07:002016-04-08T08:36:49.860-07:00The basic subsistence level is the lower limit of ...The basic subsistence level is the lower limit of the value of labour power. The value of labour power is not necessarily equal to this basic subsistence level. <br /><br />Not only can the price of labour power rise above its value, but the value of labour power can also rise.<br /><br />Whether a rise in real wages represents a rise in the price of labour power above its value, or a rise in its value, seems to depend on its permanence.Ahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17386123430230365251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-75061880591346720902016-04-07T19:19:29.595-07:002016-04-07T19:19:29.595-07:00"Marx appears to think that normally, if real...<i>"Marx appears to think that normally, if real wages do rise, it will be by less than the increase in productivity. "</i><br /><br />More than that, his theory requires that most wages tend towards the subsistence level:<br /><br />http://socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.com/2016/03/marx-on-wage-determination-and.html<br />Lord Keyneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06556863604205200159noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-59817060965445742632016-04-07T13:28:07.836-07:002016-04-07T13:28:07.836-07:00“But the law of value in its international applica...“But the law of value in its international application is yet more modified by this, that on the world-market the more productive national labour reckons also as the more intense, so long as the more productive nation is not compelled by competition to lower the selling price of its commodities to the level of their value.”<br /><br />Your interpretation:<br /><br />“Secondly, highly productive labour in developed nations is more intense labour and creates more value before competition drives down the selling price of the produced goods to their true values."<br /><br />That doesn’t really make sense. More intense labour produces more value per hour than less intense labour. More productive labour, on the other hand, produces more goods per hour but reduces the value of each good, as it reduces the labour time needed to produce them. <br /><br />I think what he’s saying is that the more productive labour in developed countries is counted on the world market *as if* it was more intense labour (“reckons as the more intense”), i.e. as if more value was being produced per hour, even if it isn’t actually more intense labour. (This is what he means by the law of value in its international application being ‘modified’). <br /><br />That’s why commodities produced by the more productive national labour are sold on the world market at prices above their value. That is, until productivity rises in other countries and competition reduces the price of the commodities on the world market to their actual value. This competitive process is delayed in the world market because capital and labour don’t move freely between countries.<br /><br />However, he then goes on to say that "In proportion as capitalist production is developed in a country, in the same proportion do the national intensity and productivity of labour there rise above the international level", so it's not clear why he's making this point about the law of value being 'modified' on the world market with respect to productivity and commodities being sold above their value. <br /><br />In the footnote to this sentence (footnote 2) he writes: "We shall inquire, in another place, what circumstances in relation to productivity may modify this law for individual branches of industry." Which suggests that productivity and intensity do not necessarily rise in tandem. All in all this passage is quite vague.Ahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17386123430230365251noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6245381193993153721.post-70240514469607951112016-04-07T11:36:07.613-07:002016-04-07T11:36:07.613-07:00"So it cannot be that Marx thought that the r..."So it cannot be that Marx thought that the real wage would rise in line with productivity growth"<br /><br />However, higher productivity makes it possible for real wages to rise even as the rate of surplus value remains the same or increases. Whether real wages do actually rise or not depends on other factors which determine the bargaining power of labour. Marx appears to think that normally, if real wages do rise, it will be by less than the increase in productivity. <br /><br />"But hand-in-hand with the increasing productivity of labour, goes, as we have seen, the cheapening of the labourer, therefore a higher rate of surplus-value, even when the real wages are rising. The latter never rise proportionally to the productive power of labour."<br /><br />https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch24.htm#S4<br /><br />However it's not impossible, under conditions favourable to labour, for wages to rise in line with productivity. How long this can go on for is another question (it might imply a falling rate of profit even if the rate of surplus value is constant). The long quote I posted previously from chapter 25 discusses some of these issues.<br /><br />Also he seems to think that real wages would actually be higher in countries with higher productivity.<br /><br />"But even apart from these relative differences of the value of money in different countries, it will be found, frequently, that the daily or weekly, &tc., wage in the first nation [more productive nation] is higher than in the second [less productive nation]"<br /><br />https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch22.htm<br /><br />“because in a given country the value of labour is falling relatively to its productivity, it must not be imagined that wages in different countries are inversely proportional to the productivity of labour. In fact exactly the opposite is the case. The more productive one country is relative to another in the world market, the higher will be its wages as compared with the other. In England, not only nominal wages but [also] real wages are higher than on the continent. The worker eats more meat; he satisfies more needs.”<br /><br />https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1863/theories-surplus-value/ch08.htmAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17386123430230365251noreply@blogger.com