James Miller wrote: > The fact that statistical surveys which take into account this difference > may not exist does not change the reality. In practice, most people know > the difference between speed-up and automation. Mist people? I don't know. Most people don't have trade union consciousness in this country. However, those workers who know what speed-up is, understand that speed-up increases productivity and in a different way than technical change. Ask an autoworker. > I checked the 10th edition of Samuelson's _Economics_ (1976). When > discussing productivity growth (p. 740), he attributes this to technological > change and doesn't mention intensity of labor. At another point (p. 578), > Samuelson says, <snip> Samuelson doesn't mention the class struggle in > this context. Of course, S doesn't mention increased intensity of labor or the class struggle regarding increases in the productivity of labor. That was the point that I was making before. > In terms of supporting the interests of labor against capital, it is good > to keep clearly in mind the distinction between increased intensity of labor > and improved labor productivity. It is true that both result in the loss of > jobs, but in the long run there is a critical difference. The working class > supports technological progress as of general benefit to humanity. All we > ask is that the benefits of increasing productivity accrue to the working > people. Let the hours of weekly labor be reduced with no reduction in > weekly take-home pay. "All we ask ...." "In the long run" is an important distinction. In the long run, there may be socialism. Your "all we ask" comment suggests that you have little experience in militant trade unionism. The line that "all we ask" above could have been written by Walter Reuther. It rests on the principle of labor-management cooperation and is willing to trade-off struggles over the effects of technical change for increases in wages and/or reductions in working hours. This is part and parcel of what some have called the "Fordist model." > The working class doesn't gain > from increasing intensity of labor. The working class does not *necessarily* gain from increasing the productivity of labor via technical change. > But increasing the intensity of labor increases absolute, not relative, > surplus value. First: explain the [faulty] logic for the above. Second: produce textual support for this claim. That is, cite passages where Marx explicitly said that "increasing the intensity of labor increases absolute, not relative, surplus value." Third: Did you read Riccardo's post? Jerry NYC
