I had written: >In the Marxian tradition, "feudal exploitation" involves "direct repression" as "the main mode of labor control" but NOT "the abundance of cheap labor" which "makes it more rational [for the employer] to employ more human labor [rather] to invest in labor-saving technology."< Wojtek Sokolowski responds: >>My assertion about "abundant labour supply" comes from the arguments advanced (separately) by Chayanov and Kula in an attempt to answer the following question: how could the feudal mode of agrarian production survive in Eastern Europe until the end of the 19th century in spite of its utmost backwardness and the development of capitalism elsewhere in Europe? Their answer is: "it was economically profitable," and they show how.<< I was not disagreeing with that type of analysis. I just don't see it (or the "second serfdom" in general) as relevant to the current situation. >>I concur that my choice of "feudal" metaphor may obscure the issue somewhat -- however, I chose it in a deliberate attempt to react against the progress-and- modernization mentality that seems to increase its popular appeal. ...<< I don't think that mentality is common on pen-l; I, for one, don't have it. BTW, one of the reasons why feudalism/serfdom were not technologically progressive when it comes to production techniques (at least to the Marxian tradition represented by Dobb and Brenner) is that the capitalist control of the production process (the subsumption of labor by capital) is largely absent. The lack of direct control prevents changes in production technology at the same time that the merger between "political" and "economic" functions encourages the lord to use direct force to extract a surplus. (Technical change in military matters is encouraged, at least under classical feudalism.) Under capitalism, a certain technological progressiveness (which may not be very good from a non-capitalist viewpoint) is encouraged by the capitalist control over the labor process; they can "reconfigure" production processes relatively easily. They want to increase labor productivity at the same time that they push down labor costs. And as noted before, cheap labor makes the price of capital goods low, so that investment is not discouraged by the low cost of hiring labor-power. in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ. 7900 Loyola Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90045-8410 USA 310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950 "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- K. Marx, paraphrasing Dante A.
