Steve Cohen wrote: > the production of RSV through technical change is not "necessarily good" > only for two reasons: first, if the material benefits brought about by such > technical advances do not come from the unalienated labor of workers (ie., > if workers play no real part in the process of production that brings such > advances about] and second, if such technical advances involve some threat > to the environment that might subvert the enjoyment of the increased wealth > by the community in the long run. Jeez ... I can't believe that we're actually talking about how increasing RSV is "good" for workers under capitalism. The first part of the sentence above is convuluted, so I won't answer it. The last part is, of course, correct. But, we are not fundamentally talking here about what is "good" for the community or the "wealth of nations." That is the standpoint of bourgeois political economy. It is true, as Rakesh suggested, that the increase in RSV through technical change makes *possible* an increase in wages. However, this is by no means a foregone conclusion and actual wages will depend on many other variables (not the least of which is the class struggle). Now is increasing RSV through technical change "good" for workers? [I still can't believe we are discussing this question!]: 1) If output levels are constant, increasing productivity via technical change results in increased micro-employment, ceteris paribus. This is *not* good for either the workers who loose their jobs or the ones who remain (who frequently suffer increased intensity of work and diminished bargaining power as a consequence). 2) If output is increasing, it is still not necessarily good from a workers' standpoint. What affect will these new technologies have on the labor process and the bargaining power of workers? 3) If increased RSV through technical change has the consequence of increasing RSV through increased labor intensity, that is not "good" as well. Jerry
