Steve,
abstract labor, as in " ... it's becoming ever more difficult to measure ...
labor abstractly ..." and " ... The basic fact [is] that labor can no longer
be measured in abstraction ...".
If labour was truly abstract, i.e. measurable solely by minimal
conditions for its reproduction (which under conditions of de-skilling would
mean that all labor has more or less the same reproduction cost) and the
socially necessary labor time for producing use value, then we would expect
that wage and salary scales would be a simple matter of determining a
minimal subsistence budget and then marketing jobs to the lowest bidders -
whatever the particular position or positions to be filled. Those hired
would then be paid a flat rate in accordance with the amount of time they
take to produce a standardized unit of use value (market value as measured
by that universal commodity we call money). I don't think that it is really
necessary to prove that this relation has undergone considerable
modifications in the last 100 years! Modern wage and salary scales are
considerably biased by considerations that have nothing to do with either
subsistence or with the labor time invested to produce standardized units of
use value; the rise of a large, and well-organized population of working
professionals, the formation of powerful labor organizations of high skilled
workers and technicians, and the complementary avoidance of local class
struggle by exporting businesses and industrial operations to the third
world (formation of a priveledged working class in the metropolis).
I do not, by the way, argue that Marx's law of value (the labor theory
of value), while correct in the 19th Century, has become invalid in our
modern era is all wrong or that it may not become a more salient feature of
labour value at some future time. When we examine global political
economies Marx's law of value becomes a much more powerful tool for
explanation than it is for that of the metropolis. Outscourcing, imported
foreign labor, and exportation of industry into the third world all reflect
the attraction of the cheapness of truly abstract labor for capitalist
enterprise. Also, as I mentioned earlier some of the effects of
socialization of labour described by Paul and illustrated by your last
message may serve capital as a means for "democratizing" what were once high
grade jobs particular to the metropolis and reducing them to the level of
abstract labour - not de-skilling but with very similar effect - thereby
countering the diversification of the proletariat discussed in the message
you quote. Still, as I wrote to Paul, I'm still not convinced that Lean
Production, CMM, AQ and so on have effectively ended the diversification of
the proletariat into different conflicting sub-classes. His writing on this
issue is far from decisive. What he has shown is that cookie-cutting
sub-professionalism has great potential for combining increased proletarian
control of productive processes, higher socialization of work, and more
democratization of skills to the point of sending the proletarian "middle
classes" back to the "black hole" of undifferentiated labor. In this vein
check out this article on surveillance at the workplace: "The discipline of
teams: the control of team-based industrial work through electronic and peer
surveillance".(Special Issue: Critical Perspectives on Organizational
Control) Administrative Science Quarterly, June, 1998, by Graham Sewell
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m4035/n2_v43/21073410/p1/article.jhtml
In conclusion, if the socialization of labour (including the
surveillance issue) envisioned by Adler is in fact the future of all
production, then it would seem to me that the proletarian revolution will
eventually evolve towards a socialist solution.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Gabosch" <bebop101@comcast.net>
To: <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 11:56 AM
Subject: Re: real and virtual worlds
> Hi Victor, glad you wrote. No problem at all about taking time.
>
> Speaking of time - labor time in this case - before I comment on some of
> your remarks, I need to understand more clearly what you are saying about
> abstract labor, as in " ... it's becoming ever more difficult to measure
> labor abstractly ..." and " ... The basic fact [is] that labor can no
> longer be measured in abstraction ...". Are you saying that abstract
labor
> (exchange value) is no longer the basis of the current mode of production
> and exchange of today's world; that abstract labor (socially necessary
> labor time) is no longer the basis for exchanging commodities; and (by
> implication) that Marx's law of value (the labor theory of value), while
> correct in the 19th Century, has become invalid in our modern era?
>
> Thanks,
> - Steve
>
>
> At 12:10 PM 1/7/04 +0200, you wrote:
> >Steve,
> >Sorry for the delay, but here's my response anyway: see below.
> >
> >Regards,
> >Victor
>
> <snip>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Feb 01 2004 - 01:00:10 PST