2) WORKING-DAY CONSTANT. PRODUCTIVENESS OF LABOUR CONSTANT. INTENSITY OF LABOUR VARIABLE
Marx again
makes clear the difference between increasing the intensity of labour
– undertaking more labour in a given length of time – which is a
means of extracting Absolute Surplus Value, and increasing the
productivity of labour, which increases Relative Surplus Value.
“Increased
intensity of labour means increased expenditure of labour in a given
time. Hence a working-day of more intense labour is embodied in more
products than is one of less intense labour, the length of each day
being the same. Increased productiveness of labour also, it is true,
will supply more products in a given working-day. But in this latter
case, the value of each single product falls, for it costs less
labour than before; in the former case, that value remains unchanged,
for each article costs the same labour as before. Here we have an
increase in the number of products, unaccompanied by a fall in their
individual prices: as their number increases, so does the sum of
their prices. But in the case of increased productiveness, a given
value is spread over a greater mass of products. Hence the length of
the working-day being constant, a day's labour of increased intensity
will be incorporated in an increased value, and, the value of money
remaining unchanged, in more money.” (p 491)
How much
value is created then, in a given working day, depends upon the
extent to which the intensity of labour varies from the normal
intensity in the society. As illustrated previously, if 1000 units
are produced, at a normal level of intensity, in 12 hours, but using
the same instruments of labour etc., these same 1000 units are
instead produced in 10 hours, by increasing the intensity of the
labour – speeding up the pace of work, reducing the unproductive
time by various means – then this 10 hours of labour represents in
fact, 12 hours of labour-time, and has that value. But, if the
intensity is increased, whilst the length of the working day remains
the same, then more value is created in that time than previously.
Now a 12 hour day might actually represent, 13,14, or 15 hours of
labour-time depending on the intensity of the labour.
Moreover,
this increased value, created during the day, means that both wages
and surplus value can increase simultaneously. That might mean that
both rise equally, or that wages rise more than surplus value and
vice versa, or that one rises whilst the other does not.
But, as Marx
points out, the fact that wages rise by this means, does not mean
they necessarily rise above the value of labour-power. The opposite
may be true. The value of labour-power is determined by the cost of
its reproduction. Part of that cost is what is required to cover its
wear and tear. But, that wear and tear might increase
disproportionately if the labour is used too long, or too
intensively. As seen earlier, the worker requires a certain number
of hours a day rest, to recuperate their powers. Encroaching on that
can mean the worker is worn out prematurely.
“If the
intensity of labour were to increase simultaneously and equally in
every branch of industry, then the new and higher degree of intensity
would become the normal degree for the society, and would therefore
cease to be taken account of. But still, even then, the intensity of
labour would be different in different countries, and would modify
the international application of the law of value. The more intense
working-day of one nation would be represented by a greater sum of
money than would the less intense day of another nation.” (p 492)
3) PRODUCTIVENESS AND INTENSITY OF LABOUR CONSTANT. LENGTH OF THE WORKING-DAY VARIABLE
Marx sets
out 3 laws.
“(1.)
The working-day creates a greater or less amount of value in
proportion to its length — thus, a variable and not a constant
quantity of value.
(2.) Every change in the
relation between the magnitudes of surplus value and of the value of
labour-power arises from a change in the absolute magnitude of the
surplus-labour, and consequently of the surplus value.
(3.) The absolute value of
labour-power can change only in consequence of the reaction exercised
by the prolongation of surplus-labour upon the wear and tear of
labour-power. Every change in this absolute value is therefore the
effect, but never the cause, of a change in the magnitude of surplus
value.” (p 492)
He then
examines the effects of shortening and lengthening the working day.
1) Shortening.
The value of
labour power, and the amount of necessary labour-time remain the
same. A worker requires the same amount of necessaries whether they
work a normal working day or only half of it. They only require more
if their labour-time extends beyond the normal working day, or beyond
its normal intensity. Surplus labour and surplus value are reduced
as a result. It falls both absolutely and relative to wages.
Only by
reducing wages below the value of labour power could capital avoid
this fall in surplus value.
“All
the usual arguments against the shortening of the working-day, assume
that it takes place under the conditions we have here supposed to
exist; but in reality the very contrary is the case: a change in the
productiveness and intensity of labour either precedes, or
immediately follows, a shortening of the working-day.” (p 493)
2) Lengthening.
If the
working day is 10 hours = £10, and necessary labour and surplus
labour both equal 5 hours = £5 each, then, if the working day is
increased to 12 hours = £12, wages remain £5, whilst surplus value
rises to £7. This assumes the value of labour-power does not rise
as a consequence of this increase. Surplus value rises absolutely
and relative to wages. Conversely, although wages have not fallen
absolutely, they have fallen relative to surplus value.
The
increased amount of new value produced, as a result of this longer
working day, means that both wages and surplus value could rise
simultaneously.
“This
simultaneous increase is therefore possible in two cases, one, the
actual lengthening of the working-day, the other, an increase in the
intensity of labour unaccompanied by such lengthening.” (p 493)
As with
increased intensity of labour, the price of labour power (wages) may
fall below the value of labour-power even though wages remain
constant or even rise.
“The
value of a day's labour-power is, as will be remembered, estimated
from its normal average duration, or from the normal duration of life
among the labourers, and from corresponding normal transformations of
organised bodily matter into motion, in conformity with the nature of
man. Up to a certain point, the increased wear and tear of
labour-power, inseparable from a lengthened working-day, may be
compensated by higher wages. But beyond this point the wear and tear
increases in geometrical progression, and every condition suitable
for the normal reproduction and functioning of labour-power is
suppressed. The price of labour-power and the degree of its
exploitation cease to be commensurable quantities.” (p 493-4)
No comments:
Post a Comment