<p>As noted in a <a href="https://economics.stackexchange.com/questions/22497/marxist-economics-understanding-capitalist-exploitation-through-speed-up-or-i">previous post</a> one method of capitalist exploitation in marxian theory is through an increase in labor intensity as defined by the equation:</p>

<p>$$I=\frac{SV+V}{lh}$$</p>

<p>A fellow user <a href="https://economics.stackexchange.com/users/4185/regressforward?tab=profile">RegressForward</a> helped with the basic mathematics involved in this formula and came up with a decent understanding of the equation in my opinion. It appears to be the same as exploitation via increase via relative surplus value.</p>

<p>However after searching the web for more on this topic I found that there exists a paper which uses a completely different formula which we can use for to get an equation for us who are more econometric ally inclned. A detailed review is in:
<a href="https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09538259.2011.583833" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Duration, Intensity and Productivity of Labour and the Distinction between Absolute and Relative Surplus-value</a> by Stavros Mavroudeas.</p>

<p>Setup:</p>

<p>Let $T$ be the total daily work time of the workers, and $V$ and $SV$ be their value and surplus value produced during the day. It follows that:</p>

<p>$$T=SV+V$$</p>

<p>He describes this process of increased intensity by including a factor $b$ which denotes intensity. </p>

<p>It follows that effective labor time is defined as:</p>

<p>$$t=bT$$</p>

<p>by extension it follows that effective value production and surplus value production is:</p>

<p>$$v=bV$$
$$sv=bSV$$</p>

<p>Its interesting to note how this affects the marxian labor theory of value:</p>

<p>$$P'=C+b(V+SV)$$</p>

<p>where revenue from sale at price $P'$ is divided based on value added by machinery (C) and effective Labor value and surplus.</p>

<p><strong>In Short:</strong> As we can see Stephen Resnick uses a fundamentally different equation from Maveroudeas.  Is there a way to resolve these two equations?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-06-27T12:34:12.440Z
$T= SV+V$ implies that $T$ is not measured in workhours but in value already. Is this the case?
Alecos Papadopoulos
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-06-27T18:04:32.950Z
@AlecosPapadopoulos I believe they are equivalents since total labor work time is $T=lh$ and $T=SV+V$. seemingly we will always end up with labor intensity being equal to one all the time i.e $I=1$ or $1=\frac{SV+V}{lh}$
EconJohn
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-06-27T19:44:23.287Z
it is the other way around: "value": and "surprlus" value are measured in work hours, and are understood as "paid" and "unpaid" workhours respectively. Here "non-payment" does not reflect "contractually" non-paid hours, but unpaid hours given the wage rate that _should_ have been so that surplus goes to the workers.
Alecos Papadopoulos
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-06-27T20:26:52.323Z
@AlecosPapadopoulos Ok. Either way thats what the mathematics are.
EconJohn
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-06-27T21:56:19.030Z
But that is the reason why it appears so different to Resnick. Resnick measures value in value terms, and labor in work hours terms, and so he can take the ratio and form a pretty standard "output value per workhour" metric, that then calls it "intensity".
Alecos Papadopoulos
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-06-27T22:01:04.853Z
@AlecosPapadopoulos ah so comparison between the two are incompatible?
EconJohn
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-06-28T00:06:51.123Z
This is my impression. By using different units of measurement, essentially the $V$ and $SV$ symbols represent different variables in the two approaches.
Alecos Papadopoulos
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-07-27T13:54:17.873Z
First it would be necessary to clarify what you mean by "labour intensity". In usual Marxist usage, this is related to absolute surplus value, not relative (relative surplus value is related to work ***productivity***, which is a completely different concept).
Luís Henrique
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-07-27T23:34:31.673Z
@LuísHenrique Noted and changed
EconJohn
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-07-27T23:38:10.407Z
@EconJohn - Ah, then it is capital intensity. I suppose that this, in Marxist usage, is capital composition, which is given by C/(C+V), and is directly related to labour productivity (you can fell more trees with a sawmachine than with an axe).
Luís Henrique
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-07-27T23:42:58.930Z
@LuísHenrique Stephen Resnick Gives a pretty clear formula for  the equation of capital intensity. Increase in labor intensity the speeding up of worker progress to match the speed of a the machinery (i.e. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPSK4zZtzLI).
EconJohn
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-07-27T23:44:08.830Z
@LuísHenrique its the forced matching of $MP_L$ to an increase in $MP_K$ but without paying a higher wage. In this case $MP_L \neq w$
EconJohn
CC BY-SA 4.0
2018-07-27T23:50:04.090Z
@LuísHenrique Im going back on my agreement that its a change in absolute surplus value. It seems like its more similar to change in RSV
EconJohn
<marxism>
Marxist Economics: Contradicting Definitions of Capital Intensity?
EconJohn
# Marxist Economics: Contradicting Definitions of Capital Intensity?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2018-06-24)

As noted in a [previous post](https://economics.stackexchange.com/questions/22497/marxist-economics-understanding-capitalist-exploitation-through-speed-up-or-i) one method of capitalist exploitation in marxian theory is through an increase in labor intensity as defined by the equation:

$$I=\frac{SV+V}{lh}$$

A fellow user [RegressForward](https://economics.stackexchange.com/users/4185/regressforward?tab=profile) helped with the basic mathematics involved in this formula and came up with a decent understanding of the equation in my opinion. It appears to be the same as exploitation via increase via relative surplus value.

However after searching the web for more on this topic I found that there exists a paper which uses a completely different formula which we can use for to get an equation for us who are more econometric ally inclned. A detailed review is in:
[Duration, Intensity and Productivity of Labour and the Distinction between Absolute and Relative Surplus-value](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09538259.2011.583833) by Stavros Mavroudeas.

Setup:

Let $T$ be the total daily work time of the workers, and $V$ and $SV$ be their value and surplus value produced during the day. It follows that:

$$T=SV+V$$

He describes this process of increased intensity by including a factor $b$ which denotes intensity.

It follows that effective labor time is defined as:

$$t=bT$$

by extension it follows that effective value production and surplus value production is:

$$v=bV$$
$$sv=bSV$$

Its interesting to note how this affects the marxian labor theory of value:

$$P'=C+b(V+SV)$$

where revenue from sale at price $P'$ is divided based on value added by machinery (C) and effective Labor value and surplus.

**In Short:** As we can see Stephen Resnick uses a fundamentally different equation from Maveroudeas. Is there a way to resolve these two equations?

**Tags:** marxism

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: $T= SV+V$ implies that $T$ is not measured in workhours but in value already. Is this the case?  
> **username_0**: @username_1 I believe they are equivalents since total labor work time is $T=lh$ and $T=SV+V$. seemingly we will always end up with labor intensity being equal to one all the time i.e $I=1$ or $1=\frac{SV+V}{lh}$  
> **username_1**: it is the other way around: "value": and "surprlus" value are measured in work hours, and are understood as "paid" and "unpaid" workhours respectively. Here "non-payment" does not reflect "contractually" non-paid hours, but unpaid hours given the wage rate that _should_ have been so that surplus goes to the workers.  
> **username_0**: @username_1 Ok. Either way thats what the mathematics are.  
> **username_1**: But that is the reason why it appears so different to Resnick. Resnick measures value in value terms, and labor in work hours terms, and so he can take the ratio and form a pretty standard "output value per workhour" metric, that then calls it "intensity".  
> **username_0**: @username_1 ah so comparison between the two are incompatible?  
> **username_1**: This is my impression. By using different units of measurement, essentially the $V$ and $SV$ symbols represent different variables in the two approaches.  
> **username_2**: First it would be necessary to clarify what you mean by "labour intensity". In usual Marxist usage, this is related to absolute surplus value, not relative (relative surplus value is related to work ***productivity***, which is a completely different concept).  
> **username_0**: @username_2 Noted and changed  
> **username_2**: @username_0 - Ah, then it is capital intensity. I suppose that this, in Marxist usage, is capital composition, which is given by C/(C+V), and is directly related to labour productivity (you can fell more trees with a sawmachine than with an axe).  
> **username_0**: @username_2 Stephen Resnick Gives a pretty clear formula for  the equation of capital intensity. Increase in labor intensity the speeding up of worker progress to match the speed of a the machinery (i.e. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPSK4zZtzLI).  
> **username_0**: @username_2 its the forced matching of $MP_L$ to an increase in $MP_K$ but without paying a higher wage. In this case $MP_L \neq w$  
> **username_0**: @username_2 Im going back on my agreement that its a change in absolute surplus value. It seems like its more similar to change in RSV  

---

## 0 answers

