The second observation Hans Rothguiesser refers to how a worker must earn. Hans requires us to define whether we think that a worker must earn only what you need to live, or should earn what they produce (in which case, is expected to produce only enough to live, or if it produces more than that, the better for him .)
seems that if we say that a worker must earn what they need to live, that would be consistent with the idea of \u200b\u200blimiting the working time. Once obtained what they need to live, the employee should not continue working but go home to rest and leisure.
To say, however, that the worker must earn it produces, it appears that this response does not support the limitation of working time. If you want to work harder, because you want to earn more, not he be prevented from prolonging their working hours as far as he pleases.
But in reality, lacking any other questions we can draw from this dichotomy:
1) When the worker earns all it produces, and when you give back only part of what is produced, leaving the company Moreover, in the form of profit?
2) What happens to the worker who does not win as they occur, but is paid a fixed wage or salary? Does this worker earns more, the more work? No way. The more work that person receives the same pay and, obviously, the rest is as a utility company.
questions relate to the work day. Let's see:
1) When there are technological advances that enable leaps in productivity (as is the case with the current information revolution), which means workers spend to produce much more than before, did they pay increases proportion to the increased production (as in fact they are not reducing the time work, which is another way to offset the increase in productivity), so that as you Hans, continue to "gain what they produce, and do not go to win, in fact surreptitiously, fewer than occur?
2) If, as in the case of the production, which showed in the video , increasing productivity turns to the utility company and not to the worker, the chances are that sooner or later, that productivity growth translates into layoffs. And on the other hand, the same increase in productivity is also reflected in an increase in the organic composition of capital, as consecuncia which, in turn, tends to falling rate of profit (ie, a worsening of the crisis).
raised the issue in this way, it is then that the reduction of working hours is linked to the issue of accumulation of surplus production. If workers really earn everything they produce, there would be no such accumulation of surplus and why would not reduce the working day, except, of course, when each worker individually and freely choose to work less, because it comes in wins. Let
then the issue of surpluses, but this is where Rothgueisser says "roll Marxist" is not acceptable. Admissible or not, we must address the issue because it depends everything.
But that does not deal later.
0 comments:
Post a Comment