On 6/12/06, Walt Byars <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
A functioning "labor" market doesn't define capitalism. A market for labor
power does. Labor power is the capacity to perform labor. In capitalist
markets, people don't sell labor. The[y] sell the capitalist the right to
control their labor within specific parameters (working hours, broad job
description). Now, you purchase labor if you hire a self employed plumber
to perform a specific task, for example. But employment contracts in
capitalist firms don't say "produce 15 hamburgers, 13 chicken nuggets,
taking a break at exactly 1:15" etc...they just purchase rights to control
labor. In Marxian (as well as certain neoclassical models by samuel Bowles
and others) economics this distinction makes a huge impact.
The other person:
Can you be more specific as to why this is the defining element of
capitalism?
Feudal lords certainly didn't say to peasants "plant barl[e]y at exactly
14:30 march 22, 1322",
> Where is the market with people selling their labor power? The feudal
>lords only posessed labor power at some times, such as when corvee
labor was performed for example. When the peasant was producing for
himself, the lord didn't control the expenditure of his labor power.
Further, where was the commodity production? Also, your example is bad
because capitlaist bosses do give instructions that specific. Just
not on the labor
contract.
the thing about feudalism/serfdom is that the individual
peasants/serfs had control over little plots of land and could produce
their subsistence under their own command. But they had to pay rent
(which was merged with the concept of taxes, since the feudal boss was
also the political boss), either in terms of unpaid labor (corvee),
product, or money.
There was limited commodity production under classical European
serfdom, but the "second serfdom" of Eastern Europe often involved
production for the world market.
nor did mercantilists hire out labor with such specific parameters.
>They didn't produce commodities in their capacity as merchants either.
When has such specific contracting ever existed?
Totally specific "contracting" exists under slavery, where the owner
says "jump or else I'll whip you" and the slave jumps (or is whipped).
...
And, more importantly, why does it matter?
>Think about what would happen if the specific labor to be performed was
>determined by contract. There would be no room for conflict over the
>intensity of work on the shop floor, no technical choice based upon such
>conflict. If any such conflicts popped up, they would be resolved by the
>state rather than the choice of production technique.
it's impossible to sign such a contract, at least with free labor,
given the nonspecificity of the future.
...
Now, I can imagine what I would say to explain labor power as commodity to
a skeptic. I would say that the capitalist acquires "the capacity to
perform labor" inasmuch as it becomes his decision how this capacity will
be used. However, I can imagine that a skeptic would object (and I believe
Harold Demsetz made this same objection to radical neoclassicals who were
using this concept) that the worker still remains the ultimate decision
maker over how his LP is used, because even if he formally "submits" to
the capitalist, he still has the choice of whether or not to obey his
orders every step of the way. By that logic, the worker never really cedes
control of his labor power.
he or she never does completely. The capitalist employment
relationship is inherently conflictual.
--
Jim Devine / "The decadent international but individualistic
capitalism in the hands of which we found ourselves after the war is
not a success. It is not intelligent. It is not beautiful. It is not
just. It is not virtuous. And it doesn't deliver the goods." -- John
Maynard Keynes.
