Greg Schofield writes: >... I would not be so free and easy with testing Marx's abstract essence of capital against "empirical" evidence...<
I wasn't "testing" Marx's theory. Instead, I was simply applying an abstract theory to the concrete reality (white-collar vs. blue-collar workers, etc.) As my presentation shows, the abstract theory doesn't apply exactly when applied to a specific situation. But if we can't apply the theory to understand concrete reality, what's the point of it? >Your original point is absolutely valid, there has been a great switch away from productivity to less productive but more lucrative intensification of living labour. Part and parcel of the historical defeats of the working class in these changing globbal conditions.< I was simply refering to a "switch" that seems to be part of the current business cycle. But it also applies globally: if low-wage workers are available in, say, China, then there's little point in applying "best practice" technology. Low wages are a substitute for technological change that raises labor's productivity. However, such technical change occurs anyway, given the government (and private-sector) investment in its promotion. >The level of abstraction of absolute and relative surplus extraction informs analysis rather than directly translates, but the point remains valid - the relative destruction of productive powers.< I was using those concepts to "inform" rather than directly translating. But I don't think the "destruction of productive powers" is what I was talking about. Rather it was the non-development of productive powers. However, it's possible that some "technically advanced" plant has been wiped out in the competitive battle by low-wage plant... >Now I can readily be accused of the utmost simplicity in this, but the progressive effects of worker's economic struggle leads directly to a rise in dead labour [i.e. mechanization and the like] within the productive process. Bourgeois success, in effect, retards this specific development - in fact it distorts and destroys some of its underpinnings - other aspects, such as the spread of production into "cheap labour" basins has more more welcomed immediate effects, but again the logic catches up with the system. >"Cheap labour" held cheap (economic struggle held in check), leads to an introduction of new machines into areas that previously lacked them, but the overall power to produce is reduced as this is a realitive move to divest of just such devices and more elsewhere - the overall investment in "labour saving devices" declines.< I don't get this. Even if the "best practice" equipment isn't introduced into a low-wage area, introducing an "antiquated" technique there will in many cases raise labor productivity there. BTW, your general perspective on this issue -- but not the conclusion that I objected to at the end -- is also seen in Charlie Andrews' book FROM CAPITALISM TO EQUALITY, a very useful treatise/textbook on Marxian political economy. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- K. Marx, paraphrasing Dante A.
