In his Grundrisse, Marx identified surplus labour time as a form of disposable time. That is to say that, under capitalism, it is labour time at the disposal of capital. "The whole development of wealth," Marx wrote, "rests on the creation of disposable time." "In production resting on capital," he continued three sentences later, "the existence of necessary labour time is conditional on the creation of superfluous labour time."
Although it strongly suggests surplus labour time -- and
thus surplus value -- superfluous labour time is not identical to
surplus labour time. In the Grundrisse, Marx discussed disposable time
and superfluous labour time as characteristics of any human society, not exclusively
historical capitalism. It is the unique characteristic of capitalism that it
subordinates the performance of necessary labour to the production of surplus
value. Thus, under capitalism, superfluous labour time takes on a new function,
a large part of which is indeed the production of surplus value. But that is
not all, as Marx explained two paragraphs later. In its drive to create as much
surplus labour as possible and "to reduce necessary labour to a
minimum," capital also has a tendency "to increase the labouring population,
as well as constantly to posit a part of it as surplus population - population
which is useless until such time as capital can utilize it." Superfluous
labour time thus implies surplus population alongside surplus labour time.
Regardless of whether one works for a wage or is unemployed,
the capacity to perform labour is the outcome of an intrinsically social,
co-operative activity. As such, this capacity can best be understood, at least
in part, as a "common-pool resource" in that it may most effectively
be engaged, valued, enjoyed and protected as a collectively-shared asset rather
than as a fragmented assortment of individualized units, which is the current
model of labour-as-a-commodity. Relating the concept of a common-pool good to
labour is especially apt in that it illuminates, as Burkett points out, "the
parallel between capital's extension of work time beyond the limits of human
recuperative abilities [including social vitality], and capital's
overstretching of the regenerative powers of the land." However, there is
also an important distinction between wealth, which can be accumulated and
preserved, and those subsistence goods that must be consumed directly to
sustain life and enable work to continue. Social production would cease if the
producers themselves were denied the goods necessary to their sustenance. Therefore
it would be logical to regard only the produce of disposable time, that is
superfluous labour time, as goods held in common.
3 comments:
So that Sandwichman is encouraged, I find this series of posts superb, read them a couple of times and set down notes to use. Thank you so much, Sandwichman.
Social production would cease if the producers themselves were denied the goods necessary to their sustenance. Therefore it would be logical to regard only the produce of disposable time, that is superfluous labour time, as goods held in common.
[ Nice. ]
These superb posts are directly relevant to labor in China, and can be used to explain aspects of the dramatic Chinese growth that has been experienced.
Post a Comment