KARL CARLILE: Hi Tom!
TOM: In closing, I'd like to reiterate that the call for limiting the working day
is not based on economic theory, it is based on an historical argument. That
historical argument includes a critique of political economy that is useful
in showing the mendacity of "economic" arguments against limiting the
working day. But it cannot -- and doesn't need to -- generate economic
arguments in favour of limiting the working day. This would be like asking
Jonathan Swift what are the economic arguments against eating Irish infants.
If Colin Danby agrees that limiting the working day would be, intrinsicly, a
good thing but thinks it is nevertheless necessary to have strictly economic
arguments in favour of limiting the working day, I encourage him to develop
those arguments. As Colin said, "There are a lot of possible stories." I've
already decided what kinds of stories I believe are going to be fruitful.
KARL: A call for limiting the working day is a political call and
thereby a political question. A call for limiting the working day is
made as a means of resisting the the devalorisation of labour power.
It is a demand made by the working class to counteract the falling
value of labour power. If the value of labour power falls and the
price of labour power correspondingly falls that means the working
class fail to benefit from the increased productivity leading to the
fall in the value of labour power. Consequently the standard of living
remains as before. To resist this the working class can mobilizes
around a demand for reducing the length of the normal working day
with no corresponding loss of pay. The upshot is that the value of
labour power still falls while the price of labour power does not
fall to the same level as the value of labour power.
The call for reducing the length of the normal working day is a
political demand and must be made in the context of resisting
attempts by the capitalist to reduce the value of labour power. Under
capitalism is not possible to prevent the value of labour power from
falling. However the working class can successfully resist the wages
or the price of labour power from falling as fast as the value of
labour power. The long term effects of keeping the price of labour
power above its reduced value means that that the new price become
the new value of labour power. Consequnently while the value of
labour power falls as the technical composition of capital increases,
it does not fall as much as it would in the absence of successful
class struggle. Consequently the issue of resisting the fall in the
value of labour power is a political issue and thereby a function of
the political strength of the working class in relation to the
capitalist class.
Finally resistance of this kind must be mounted by the working in the
context of the long term aim of abolishing the wage form itself and
thereby capitalism. This means that resistance to the devalorisation
of labour power has a revolutionary pedagogic character from which the
working class can draw the political lesson that it can never fully
benefit from technical progress under capitalism. Consequently the
proletariat, to acquire the full benefits of technology, must abolish the
capitalist system. This is the ultimate pedagogy entailed in the
struggle around the falling value of labour power. In many ways this
political question is a question as to what class is to benefit from
technological progress.
Karl
