File spoon-archives/anarchy-list.archive/anarchy-list_2003/anarchy-list.0303, message 366


Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 17:36:56 +0100 (CET)
From: Joacim Persson <joacim-AT-ymex.net>
Subject: Re: whoa, I'm behind the times/push button workers...


On Thu, 6 Mar 2003, Kevin Carson wrote:

> I'm not sure what relevance this has.  No advocate of the labor theory of 
> value denies that cooperative labor and division of labor drastically 
> increase the productivity of labor.  And at any given time, the "socially 
> necessary labor" that determines exchange value is defined by the existing 
> average level of productivity, assuming standard production techniques.

What do you mean by "productivity"? (what unit could it be measured by)

Energy usage (in the I-world in particular) has increased tremendously the
last century. Efficiency (energy made useful divided by energy consumed)
has rather decreased. (the excess of energy makes it less worth striving
for efficiency)

> The issue is, what does this increased productivity result from, and who is 
> entitled to the increased returns from more productive labor?  Since all 
> those fancy machines were created by deferring consumption in the past, the 
> question arises, WHOSE consumption was deferred?  The "abstemious 
> capitalist" of the vulgar economists, or the work force who had abstention 
> forced upon them?


The machines are hardly cranked around by hand anymore. Neither are the
machines that makes the machines etc. There is no way the population on
Earth could provide so much work, physical labour by muscels, as is
necessary to produce all this stuff that can be bought, traded for the
salary the "workers" get for their job. Not even close.  So it boils down
two who has the right to the exergy (energy and raw material) sources. Like
oil.

("abstention"? In our part of the world? ;)


   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005