Labor Intensification and Value Production

Abstract

This article serves as a commentary on Basu, Haas, and Moraitis’s (BHM’s) analysis of labor intensification. While endorsing the ramifications of BHM’s differentiation between labor’s capacity to process inputs into output per unit of time and labor’s capacity to create value per unit of time, I augment the discourse by introducing two supplementary considerations. First, it is erroneous to directly extrapolate the outcomes of the one-sector model to those of the n-sector model. Second, the impact of labor intensification can be scrutinized through an alternative lens by relaxing the ceteris paribus assumption.

JEL Classification: B14, B51, C02

Keywords

labor intensification labor productivity skill

1. Introduction

This article is inspired by Basu, Haas, and Moraitis’s (BHM 2024) analysis of the effects of labor intensification. They presented a valuable theoretical framework for analyzing the impact of labor intensification on both value production and the rate of exploitation. Specifically, their differentiation between labor’s capacity to process inputs into output (CPIO) per unit of time and labor’s capacity to create value (CCV) per unit of time warrants careful examination. This article aims to provide a basis for further development of the discussion by adding the following two points to the positive assessment of the implications of this distinction.

First, it does not directly apply from the discussion of the one-sector model to the implications of the general n-sector model.

Second, the effects of labor intensification should be analyzed differently if one maintains the ceteris paribus assumption that Marx adopts in volume 1 of Capital.

The remainder of this article is organized as follows. Section 2 summarizes the core of BHM’s discussion using a one-sector model. Section 3 points out the problems with their analysis based on a reading of volume 1 of Capital. Section 4 presents an alternative interpretation of their cases, and section 5 presents the conclusion.

2. BHM’s Interpretation

To capture the essence of BHM’s discussion, the one-commodity model they present suffices. They present the assumption that $a (< 1)$ units of corn and $l$ units of labor are required to produce a unit of corn, which functions dually as a productive input and a consumable output.

As articulated by BHM, the outcome of labor intensification is encapsulated in the phenomenon wherein a single unit of labor is endowed with the capability to convert $μ_{1} a$ units of corn into $μ_{1}$ units of corn (CPIO), while each labor hour engenders the creation of $μ_{2}$ units of value (CCV), where $μ_{1} > 1$ and $μ_{2} > 1$ . Here, CPIO embodies the notion of use-value productivity, whereas CCV represents the notion of the “value expression of labor time.” CCV signifies “how many hours of socially necessary abstract labor correspond to an hour of concrete individual labor” (Rieu 2008: 565), or designates the “value productivity” lineated as “the value produced per unit of time” (Reuten 2017: 15).

Utilizing these delineations, the scenarios are bifurcated into the following three cases:

C a s e 1 : μ_{1} = μ_{2}; C a s e 2 : μ_{1} < μ_{2}; C a s e 3 : μ_{1} > μ_{2}

Notably in case 2, the unit value of corn will increase because the use value production will increase $μ_{1}$ times while the value production will increase $μ_{2} (> μ_{1}$ ) times. That is, the unit value of corn will increase $μ_{2} / μ_{1}$ times, which is greater than 1. In contrast, in case 3, the unit value of corn will decrease:¹

When there is an increase in the intensity of labor, the change in the unit value of corn depends on the relative magnitude of $μ_{1}$ and $μ_{2}$ . If $μ_{1} = μ_{2}$ , then the value of corn remains unchanged; if $μ_{1} < μ_{2}$ , then the value of corn rises; if $μ_{1} > μ_{2}$ , then the value of corn falls. The intuition for this result is straightforward. If, for instance, intensification of labor increases labor’s CPIO, captured by $μ_{1}$ , by more than its CCV, captured by $μ_{2}$ , then each hour of labor creates a larger magnitude of use values than the increment in the addition of value. Hence, the unit value of the commodity falls. The other two cases can be understood in a similar manner. (BHM 2024: 5)

BHM (2024) declare that case 1 “seems most common,” case 2 “breaches normal working conditions,” and case 3 “seems unlikely to occur in any realistic scenario” without providing any further evidence. Based on these arguments, they show that cases 1 and 2 produce absolute surplus value, and case 3 produces both absolute and relative surplus value. However, because of the inherent unlikelihood of case 3 manifesting in real-world contexts, the overarching outcome of labor intensification primarily generates absolute surplus value. The impact of labor intensification on the rate of surplus value is also analyzed. Furthermore, the analysis is extended to simple two-department and general linear models.

3. Unsnarling the Tangle

The principal foundation for the value-theoretic analysis of the effects of labor intensification lies in chapter 17 (or chapter 15 in the German edition) of volume 1 of Capital. Marx explains that the relative magnitudes of surplus value and the price of labor power are determined by three circumstances: the length of the working day, the normal intensity of labor, and the productivity of labor (Marx 1976: 655).² He analyzes scenarios wherein only one of these three determinants is altered while the remaining two are kept constant (sections 1–3), scenarios wherein two determinants experience change while the third remains stable (section 4 (1)), and scenarios wherein all three determinants undergo simultaneous alteration (section 4 (2)). Of the sections, “The length of the working day and productivity of labor constant: The intensity of labor variable” (section 2) rigorously examines the repercussions of labor intensification through the lens of comparative static analysis, with the assumption of ceteris paribus, that is, maintaining the other factors as invariable, to isolate and scrutinize the exclusive impact of labor intensification.

Before embarking on the application of comparative static analysis, it is important to emphasize that the differentiation between CPIO and CCV loses its analytic significance within the confines of a one-sector model. The one-sector model attains logical equivalence with the n sector model, wherein labor intensification occurs simultaneously and uniformly across all sectors. Marx expounds the latter circumstance in the following context:

If the intensity of labor were to increase simultaneously and equally in every branch of industry, then the new and higher degree of intensity would become the normal social degree of intensity, and would therefore cease to count as an extensive magnitude. (Marx 1976: 661–62)

As a corollary of this reasoning, within the ambit of the one-sector model, labor intensification does not increase the quantity of value produced. This can be expressed easily as follows.

Let the new unit value be $λ^{'}$ and the labor-intensified labor be $l^{'}$ . When CPIO increases ( $μ_{1} > 1$ ) as a result of labor intensification, the value is determined as:

μ_{1} λ^{'} = λ^{'} μ_{1} a + l^{'}

∴ λ^{'} = l^{'} / μ_{1} (1 - a)

If $l^{'}$ is established as the new standard, then the unit value has decreased relative to the previous one, $λ = l / (1 - a)$ . Notably, the amount of value produced in a given labor hour is unchanged; hence, an increase in CCV, that is, $μ_{2} > 1$ , is logically incorrect.

Therefore, the following situation described by Marx, as “labor intensification and increased quantity of value with unchanged unit value,” applies to the case where labor intensification occurs in only one industry in the n sector model:⁴

Increased intensity of labor means increased expenditure of labor in a given time. Hence a working day of more intense labor is embodied in more products than is one of less intense labor, the length of each working day being the same.. . . [I]n the case mentioned here that value remains unchanged, because each article costs the same amount of labor as before. Here we have an increase in the number of products unaccompanied by a fall in their individual prices: as their number increases, so does the sum of their prices. (Marx 1976: 660–61)

In this case, the change in $μ_{2}$ must be exactly proportional to the change in $μ_{1}$ because the unit value must be constant because of the premise that labor productivity is kept constant. Therefore, if BHM are trying to analyze the effect of labor intensification under the ceteris paribus assumption, then cases 2 ( $μ_{1} < μ_{2}$ ) and 3 ( $μ_{1} > μ_{2}$ ) are incorrectly included.

They also seem to be fully aware of the ceteris paribus assumption as follows:

If there is an increase in the length of working day, holding the daily real wage bundle, the productivity of labor and the intensity of labor fixed.. . . On the other hand, if the productivity of labor increases because of technical change, holding the length of the working day, the daily real wage bundle, and the intensity of labor fixed. (BHM 2024: 2, emphasis added)

However, it is notable that in their examination of labor intensification, a departure from the ceteris paribus assumption is introduced by permitting alterations in labor productivity. The moment one assumes that the rates of change for the CPIO and CCV are different, it involves introducing changes in labor intensity and labor productivity. Contrary to BHM’s assertion, it is not possible to “clearly and quantitatively separate out labor’s CPIO and CCV” in this case. Undoubtedly, this is not to say that an analysis that simultaneously changes both factors is a logical fallacy. However, this can be seen as a departure from the research question, “Does the intensification of labor increase the rate of exploitation?” (BHM 2024: 1). At the very least, the question should be changed to “What is the effect on value production when labor intensity and labor productivity change simultaneously?”

Table 1 summarizes the two cases from BHM (2024). In case 2, labor intensification and a decline in labor productivity occurred simultaneously. This is plausible because labor intensification could potentially lead to a decrease in labor productivity by increasing worker fatigue. Contrastingly, in case 3, labor intensification and labor productivity increased simultaneously. This example is discussed by Marx in chapter 17 of Capital, volume 1. Marx’s logic is as follows:

The more productivity of labor increases, the more the working day can be shortened, and the more the working day is shortened, the more the intensity of labor can increase. (Marx 1976: 667)

Table 1.

BHM’s interpretation.

	labor intensity	labor productivity
$μ_{1} < μ_{2} ($ case 2)	(+)	(−)
$μ_{1} > μ_{2} (case 3)$	(+)	(+)

As Marx dealt with a simultaneous reduction in the length of the working day, this is not strictly the same as case 3 in BHM (2024). However, it seems that Marx himself thought that labor intensification and labor productivity increase could occur simultaneously. In other words, contrary to BHM’s claim, case 3 is not necessarily “unlikely to occur.”

4. An Alternative Explanation

Marx does not address the issue of skill or labor complexity in chapter 17 because he already assumes the following in chapter 2 of Capital, volume 1:

In the interests of simplification, we shall henceforth view every form of labor power directly as simple labor power; by this we shall simply be saving ourselves the trouble of making the reduction. (Marx 1976: 135)

However, to complete the analysis of value production and the rate of surplus value, we must also examine changes in skill or labor complexity. As Marx points out, “more complex labor counts only as intensified labor, or rather multiplied simple labor” (Marx 1976: 135); thus, increasing skill (labor complexity) can be explained by the same logic as labor intensification. The important difference is that in the case of labor intensification, the worker’s effort actually increases, but in the case of skill improvement, the value-creating capacity increases regardless of the increase in effort. Therefore, in this case, it is logical that $μ_{2}$ first becomes greater than 1 and ceteris paribus, as far as labor productivity is kept constant; $μ_{1}$ will increase proportionally to $μ_{2}$ , which implies $μ_{1} = μ_{2}$ . This means that, as in the case of labor intensification, $μ_{1} \neq μ_{2}$ is excluded from the analysis from the start.

In reality, labor intensity, labor productivity, and skill (labor complexity) change simultaneously. Therefore, under what circumstances would cases 2 and 3 of BHM (2024) occur?

It is obvious that a large number of combinations are possible here. Any two of the factors may vary and the third remain constant, or all three may vary at once. They may vary equally or unequally, in the same direction or in opposed directions, with the result that the variations cancel each other out, either wholly or in part. Nevertheless, every possible case can easily be analyzed by using the results obtained in cases I, II, and III. The effect of every possible combination may be found by treating each factor in turn as variable, and the other two as constant for the time being. (Marx 1976: 664)

Even if $μ_{1} \neq μ_{2}$ is not possible in a ceteris paribus analysis, if several factors change simultaneously, $μ_{1} < μ_{2}$ or $μ_{1} > μ_{2}$ will be possible. We considered each of these combinations as realistically plausible combination.

First, $μ_{1} < μ_{2}$ is possible if there is a simultaneous increase in skill (or labor complexity) and a decrease in labor intensity in an industry. An increase in skill (or labor complexity) will increase $μ_{2}$ and, ceteris paribus, $μ_{1}$ will increase proportionally. However, if not ceteris paribus, a decrease in $μ_{1}$ will be caused by a decrease in labor intensity. In this case, labor intensity is weakened by $μ_{2} - μ_{1} > 0$ .

Next, $μ_{1} > μ_{2}$ is possible if labor intensification happens simultaneously with decrease in skill (or labor complexity). Labor intensification will increase $μ_{1}$ , and ceteris paribus, $μ_{2}$ will also increase proportionally. However, if not ceteris paribus, a decrease in skill (or labor complexity) will bring a decrease in $μ_{2}$ . In this case, skill (or labor complexity) will decrease by $μ_{1} - μ_{2} > 0$ .

As can be seen from table 2, both cases are based on the relationship that as labor complexity increases, labor intensity decreases. In short, they assume a tradeoff between skill and labor discipline, which is intuitively plausible. Contrary to the claims of BHM (2024), case 3 is quite plausible, and case 2 can occur without “breaching normal working conditions.”

Table 2.

An alternative interpretation.

	Skill (labor complexity)	labor intensity
$μ_{1} < μ_{2} ($ case 2)	(+)	(−)
$μ_{1} > μ_{2} (case 3)$	(−)	(+)

5. Concluding remarks

In this article, the following arguments were presented:

BHM’s distinction between CPIO and CCV is an interesting analytical framework, but it is meaningless in a one-sector model and only significant in an n-sector model when the rate of change of labor intensification in each industry is unequal. Therefore, there is no transferability between the results of the one-sector and n-sector models.

For labor intensification, under the ceteris paribus assumption, CPIO and CCV always change proportionally. Therefore, cases 2 and 3 of BHM (2024) are ruled out from the beginning. The ceteris paribus assumption must be relaxed to allow the CPIO and CCV to differ. In this case, we can introduce the skill differences that are assumed away in volume 1 of Marx’s Capital.

In a world without the ceteris paribus assumption, cases 2 and 3 can occur. In particular, once skill differences are introduced, these two cases are not uncommon but can be explained consistently under the plausible assumption that labor discipline is a decreasing function of the skill level of workers.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Dong-Min Rieu

1

Here, case 1, case 2, and case 3 correspond to (a), (b), and (c) in : 3), respectively.

2

Here are some subtle translation issues. When analyzing the problem of labor intensity in the volume 1 of Das Kapital, Marx uses the term Produktivkraft der Arbeit (literally translated into productive power of labor) instead of Produktivität (productivity). For details, see chapter 10 of .

3

It must be noted that the basic spirit of this value equation is not qualitatively different from BHM’s definition, $μ_{1} λ^{'} = λ^{'} μ_{1} a + μ_{2} l$ , in that $l^{'}$ implies the quantity of intensified labor, which is different from $l$ .

4

If the rate of change in labor intensity is unequal across sectors, theoretical effects will be the same. Equation (14) in , $l^{'} = (l_{1} μ_{2} / μ_{1} l_{2} \dots l_{n})$ , i.e., the case where labor intensification occurs only in industry 1, is analytically equivalent to the case where labor intensification occurs in n industries at different rates, i.e., $l' = (l_{1} α_{1} l_{2} α_{2} \dots l_{n} α_{n})$ where $a l l α_{i}$ ’s are positive and $α_{i} \neq α_{j} f o r i \neq j$ .

Author Biography

Dong-Min Rieu is Professor of Economics at Chungnam National University, where he teaches Marxian economics and history of economic thought.

References

Basu

Deepankar

Haas

Cameron

Moraitis

Thanos

. 2024. Intensification of labor and the rate and form of exploitation. Review of Radical Political Economics 56 (1): 26–50.

Marx

Karl

. 1976. Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, volume 1. Harmondsworth: Penguin.

Reuten

Geert

. 2017. The productive powers of labor and the redundant transformation to prices of production: A Marx-immanent critique and reconstruction. Historical Materialism 25 (3): 3–35.

Rieu

Dong-Min

. 2008. Estimating sectoral rates of surplus value: Methodological issues. Metroeconomica 59 (4): 557–73.

Rieu

Dong-Min

. 2022. A Mathematical Approach to Marxian Value Theory: Time, Money, and Labor Productivity. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.