From: Zeynep Tufekcioglu <zeynept-AT-turk.net>
Subject: Re: Absolute and relative surplus value           
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 1996 05:26:31 +0300


Hugh has a lot of good points. 

For one, let's distinguish between the distinction made by Marx between
absolute and relative surplus value, to explain the transformation from
formal subordination of labor to capital, to complete subordination. In the
former, the fight is to extract more absolute surplus value and the
full-force of capitalism's dynamics is not yet unleashed. Once the latter
occurs the relationship is transformed forever - the capitalist controls,
modifies and revolutionarizes every aspect of the labour-process.

A good example to formal subordination in recent history is what happens
when imperialism colonizes a pre-capitalist country. First, the methods of
production may remain unchanged, or changed a little. The country may just
be "liberated" of its raw materials, or fruits and agricultural products.
Most methods of production may remain as they are. Pre-capitalist relations
may be very fruitful, so capitalism does not revolutionarize the relations
of production the way it did in the 18th century. A slave/serf economy is
even beneficial as long as absolute surplus value is the main focus and aim.

After a while, that will not be enough, and the capitalists will move in to
change the relations of production as well. They will shift the focus to
relative surplus value, the form of surplus value extraction best suited to
capitalism and transform and integrate the pre-capitalist relations to
modern, more bourgeois forms.

They are countries where capital has established only formal subordination,
and will, inevitably, establish forms of subordination specific to
capitalism. Articulation of different modes of production, imo, can best be
analyzed using the concepts of formal and complete subordination. That's why
I don't call them semi-feudal. It is obvious that feudal relations of
production do persist in those countries. What is important is that they
continue under the domination of the needs of capital accumulation.

(At which point I realise that I'm drifting from the main subject of this
thread. This can be a separate discussion, Marx explains his framework for
these concepts in an unpublished section of Capital, called "Resultate". It
was published much later, I believe in the 1960s or 1970s. )

Getting back to the thread: Once that historical mark has passed, any
increase in surplus value either by prolonging the working day or increasing
the intensity of it can go ahead without also modifying the labour process
itself. My emphasis was to highlight a shift in methods and focus. So, Hugh
says:

>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. 

Which I agree completely. In fact, Total Quality Management addresses
exactly the same issues. It intensifies the labour performed by the worker,
and creates extra-controls and methods trying to overcome the problems
associated with the intensification. What Hugh is describing above is
exactly the problems that TQM and Just In Time production Gurus are racking
their brains over.

I agree it is not a straightforward process. I just wanted to highlight
their focus on intensification.

>(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).

Which is, btw, exactly the case at least here in Turkey. 

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

Again, true. QTM and JIT are based on that knowledge.

>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.

Again, true. 

While emphasizing the intensification, I didn't go into these. Hugh's
contribution is important, and there is a lot more to talk about at this
more concrete level.

I include this quote, because it is the basis of my argument as well. I
still do uphold that intensification by forcing the laborers to do more and
modifying the work methods (not the machinery) is different from increasing
productivity by more productive machinery. I also think intensification and
prolongation of the working day have similar affects, and they are the
current basis of the "labor-leg" of the neo-liberal program of increasing
surplus value. (The other is, as I've repeated endlessly, reducing the cuts
taken from profit in terms of taxes, and increasing the subsidies/incentives
to capitalists.)

>       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.


>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.

We agree here.

>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.

Well, either a good war or -cough- cold fusion. 

>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.

I think Marx's distinction is useful during the transition from
pre-capitalism to capitalism. I find -ahem- my distinction to be more useful
in analyzing the capitalist's reaction to a crisis.

>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.

True, in that sense, intensification is invisible. 

Next post, I'll post about concrete applications of "flexible labour
practices". It will be more useful to continue at that level.

Zeynep

P.S.
>-- all this shows how
>desperate the continuing crisis of overproduction is making them.

Hugh, why do you call it a crisis of overproduction? Not to disagree, but
I'm not that sure it should be called that. 



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