Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 00:18:24 +0100
From: m-14970-AT-mailbox.swipnet.se (Hugh Rodwell)
Subject: Re: Absolute and relative surplus value


A few posts ago, Zeynep insisted on the usefulness of distinguishing
between intensification as a means of extracting greater surplus value and
increased productivity as a means of extracting greater surplus value. She
wrote:

>I think that, in Capital, intensification (as doing the same work, under the
>same conditions, just faster) was analysed to be equal to prolonging the
>working day, hence absolute surplus value. _Curtailment of the necessary
>labour-time_, to me means, employment either a different division of labour
>or more efficient machinery. So, the same worker working twice as hard
>counts as absolute surplus-value, and the same worker using better
>technology to produce the same counts as relative surplus value. (Work twice
>as hard to produce twice as many goods, the value embodied per product stays
>the same. In the latter case, the value embodied per product falls).
>
>I remember (and I guess that's what I remember wrong) that intensification
>without any changes to the working conditions was abstracted out of the
>analysis. (Just as the wage falling below the labour required the replace
>the labour-power extended was. Even though this occurs often -it means the
>worker is consuming a disporportionate amount of his/her life-energy- for
>purposes of analysis, this was left out. Intensification without any working
>condition or tool/machinery changes is in effect equal to prolonging the
>working day. In fact, that kind of intensification takes more out of the
>life of the person than prolonged workday. More productive working
>conditions is completely a different question).
>
>I think intensification and productivity are being confused. I use the terms
>to mean very different things.
>
>If Marx did not think so, in my opinion, he was wrong.

[snip]

>So, to clarify; I am distinguishing between profit increases by demanding
>more from the worker; from profit increases by using better, more efficient
>technology. I am claiming that the we see more of the former since 1980s,
>and the main point of neo-liberalism is the former.

I think the point I made about Marx's reason for making the distinction
between absolute and relative surplus value needs to be emphasized. It's a
question of the relationship between the ways of extracting surplus value
and the historical dynamic of society.

The extractors of surplus value start with a given working day, a given
intensity of labour and a given level of productivity. In increasing
absolute surplus value they leave the intensity of labour untouched and the
productivity of labour untouched. They extend the working day without
changing the other two factors. In other words, absolute surplus value
remains *static* in its relationship to the means and methods of
production. It does not attempt to reduce the necessary labour time, merely
to lengthen the surplus labour time.

Relative surplus value, on the other hand, is extracted by leaving
untouched the length of the working day and changing the intensity of
labour and/or the level of productivity. The effect is *dynamic* in that in
its efforts to reduce the necessary labour time it revolutionizes both the
means and methods of production.

The thing Zeynep seems to miss is that intensification is not a
straightforward process. At the very least it requires increased
supervision. It requires greater flexibility in managing the workforce,
given the risks of injury, exhaustion, collapse etc and the need for
replacement labour at very short notice. If the intensification is a
long-term goal, it needs improved working methods, both in terms of better
labour skills and better throughput (less wasted time), otherwise the gains
in time will be eaten up by damage to the workforce or decreased quality
and/or bottlenecks in production. (The neoliberal paradise of mass
unemployment doesn't solve all these problems -- shortages of skilled
labour can easily coexist with a vast surplus of unskilled labour).

Work methods are a factor of productivity as well as machines.

When a given level of intensity of labour is general in society, it is not
easy to change it. Any change in intensity has qualitative implications
different from a change in the length of the working day.

I refer, to avoid oversimplification, to Marx's paragraph on the apparent
interpenetration of absolute and relative surplus value, but insist on his
emphasis on the categorical difference between the two (Capital I, Part V,
Ch 1 Absolute and relative surplus value):


       From one standpoint, any distinction between  absolute and relative
       surplus-value appears illusory. Relative surplus-value is absolute,
       since it compels the absolute prolongation of the working-day beyond
       the labour-time necessary to the existence of the labourer himself.
       Absolute surplus-value is relative, since it makes necessary such a
       development of the productiveness of labour, as will allow of the
       necessary labour-time being confined to a portion of the working-day.
       But if we keep in mind the behaviour of surplus-value, this appearance
       of identity vanishes.

       Once the capitalist mode of production is established and become
       general, the difference between absolute and relative surplus-value
       makes itself felt, whenever there is a question of raising
       the  rate of surplus value. Assuming that labour-power is
       paid for at its value, we are confronted by this alternative: given
       the productiveness of labour and its normal intensity, the rate of
       surplus-value can be raised only by the actual prolongation of the
       working-day; on the other hand, given the length of the working-day,
       that rise can be effected only by a change in the relative magnitudes
       of the components of the  working-day, viz., necessary labour and
       surplus-labour; a change which, if the wages are not to fall below the
       value of labour-power, pre-supposes a change either in the
       productiveness or in the intensity of the labour.


It might clarify his position a bit if we looked at a reference he makes to
the dynamic historical role of relative surplus value late in Book III of
Capital (Part VII, Revenues and their sources, ch 48, The trinity formula
(4 or 5 pages from the end, Progress Publishers p 827), my emphasis):

       If one considers capital, to begin with, in the actual process of
       production as a means of extracting surplus-labour, then this
       relationship is still very simple, and the actual connection impresses
       itself upon the bearers of this process, the capitalists themselves,
       and remains in their consciousness. The violent struggle over the
       limits of the working-day demonstrates this strikingly. But even
       within this non-mediated sphere, the sphere of direct action between
       labour and capital, matters do not rest in this simplicity. **With the
       development of relative surplus value in the actual specifically
       capitalist mode of production, whereby the productive powers of social
       labour are developed**, these productive powers and the social
       interrelations of labour in the direct labour-process seem transferred
       from labour to capital. Capital thus becomes a very mystic being since
       all of labour's social productive forces appear to be due to capital,
       rather than labour as such, and seem to issue from the womb of capital
       itself.


In other words, with the complete subordination of society to capital, the
simple relationships of absolute surplus value ('more and more hours are
being added on to the time I have to work to make someone else rich') are
being submerged in the less visible relationships of relative surplus value
('I've been making these damn things faster and faster for decades now, and
still they're out of my reach').

Perhaps this highlights the crisis in which capitalism finds itself. I
think most of us recognize the desperate efforts of the capitalists to
extort more and more surplus labour that Zeynep is focusing on.

The fact that they are doing it with the brutal methods of absolute surplus
value (lengthening the working day) and the most brutal and shortsighted
methods of relative surplus value (intensifying labour by slavedriving) at
the same time as they are trying as hard as they can to reduce wages and
social labour costs AND to carry on all the usual tricks of
'non-confrontational' relative surplus value -- all this shows how
desperate the continuing crisis of overproduction is making them.

What they really need is a damn good war, but they need some political base
for that. What control have they got via the CPs and the Social-Democrats
over the working masses and cannon fodder youth these days? Sweet F A.
Racism, nationalism and religion have got some local clout, but that's not
really enough for a world war. And they're scared for their own skins as
well.

Anyhow, to sum up, I think Zeynep has a valid point to make about the
methods of extracting surplus value being promoted by neoliberalism, but I
don't think she gains anything by merging it with a criticism of Marx's use
of the categories of absolute and relative surplus value. His use is clear
and consistent and provides a useful perspective on an important aspect of
the historical dynamics of capitalist development -- the role played by the
limits of the working day.

Absolute surplus value aims to violate the limit *literally*, by moving it
outwards by a couple of hours.

Relative surplus value aims to violate the limit *invisibly* by changing
the relative portions of the working day, decreasing the portion that is
necessary and increasing the portion that represents surplus labour time.

Cheers,

Hugh





     --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---