Third worldism and the labor theory of value

[Thug Lessons]

Last time I posted about this I had a great discussion. S. Artesian, if you're around and have time please come argue with me.

Let's say we have two workers doing identical labor and producing identical products, but they're in different countries. One lives in an imperialist country and receives a high wage while the other lives in a former African colony and receives a low wage. There are real examples where something roughly along these lines happens. How do we reconcile this difference in value terms? How can capitalists in imperialist nations afford to give a higher wage?

The 'first worldist', (for lack of a better term), explanation of this, as I understand it, is that workers in imperialist nations, because of greater productive capacity, etc., just produce more value. This makes no sense at all to me. If anything, greater productive capacity should push the socially necessary labor time for the production of commodities down, not up, and first world workers should actually produce less value per product, though more per unit of time. So unless these workers are producing a greater volume of commodities, far in excess of their greater productive capacity, then we can't use an increased rate of value production to explain their wages. An example of this problem playing out would be a McDonald's employee in the US compared to one in China, where the output in commodity form is roughly the same but the difference in wages is massive, in the opposite direction of what you'd expect based on this value analysis.

How this plays out politically is another question entirely, but these sort of situations are what push me towards a third worldist analysis of value.

[Broletariat]

I'll take a swing at it.

Price and Value, at an individual level, do not directly equal each other. TOTAL Value and TOTAL Price DO equal each other.

Where too much price is paid for too little value, too little price must be paid for too much value elsewhere in the economy.

[Thug Lessons]

I'll take a swing at it.

Price and Value, at an individual level, do not directly equal each other. TOTAL Value and TOTAL Price DO equal each other.

Where too much price is paid for too little value, too little price must be paid for too much value elsewhere in the economy.
Well that's not entirely correct or there wouldn't be a transformation problem, but I see what you're getting at. However, that doesn't really resolve the situation, because we're still left with no explanation as to why wages are, and more importantly can be, so much higher in the imperialist nations, which is really what I'm trying to get at here.

[Broletariat]

Well that's not entirely correct or there wouldn't be a transformation problem
There is no transformation problem. I go with a TSSI interpretation.


However, that doesn't really resolve the situation, because we're still left with no explanation as to why the value of labor-power is so much higher in the imperialist nations, which is really what I'm trying to get at here.


It's not higher, that's what I was saying. The value is the same, the price is different.

[Thug Lessons]

Yeah I edited that, I phrased it wrong originally.

[Broletariat]

Yeah I edited that, I phrased it wrong originally.

I think my answer still suffices, value is the same, price is different.

WHY price is different is another matter. Could be because the labour movement in that first world country was harder to subdue, or that the tactic chosen to subdue the labour movement was bribery whereas in the third-world it was just strong-armed down.

[Tim Finnegan]

The price of the commodity of labour power does not correlate directly with the price of the commodity which is produced by the application of that labour. The workers receive different wages because the labour power which they are selling- in terms of quantity (i.e. time) and quality (i.e. the skill-level of their work)- has a different value in each locale. Rather, the exchange value of a commodity is defined by the socially necessary labour time of that commodity, which means that the exchange value varies depending on the market which the commodities are entered into. If two first-world and third-world-produced commodities are produced in the same manner and enter into the same market, the exchange value would average out as if they were produced in the same locale, with the result that the first-world-produced commodity will have a low profit margin because of high labour costs, while the third-world produced will have a high profit margin because of relatively low labour costs. In cases where they do not, as in your "Chinese and American McDonalds" example, the exchange values of the produced commodity will be determined locally.

[Broletariat]

The price of the commodity of labour power does not correlate directly with the price of the commodity which is produced by the application of that labour. The workers receive different wages because the labour power which they are selling- in terms of quantity (i.e. time) and quality (i.e. the skill-level of their work)- has a different value in each locale. The price at which the produced commodity is sold at will, if the commodities enter into the same market, average out as if they were produced in the same local, with the result that the first-world-produced commodity will have a low profit margin because of high labour costs, while the third-world produced will have a low profit margin because of relatively high labour costs. The exchange value of a commodity is not defined by the amount or cost of labour time that went into any one item, but to the socially necessary labour time of that commodity.

Do we not, essentially, have a global market?

[Thug Lessons]

I think my answer still suffices, value is the same, price is different.

WHY price is different is another matter. Could be because the labour movement in that first world country was harder to subdue, or that the tactic chosen to subdue the labour movement was bribery whereas in the third-world it was just strong-armed down.
The really important question here is how capitalists can afford these higher wages. The average wage for an urban worker in China are around $6000 annually, while the minimum wage in the US comes to about $15,000 annually, (note that these are conservative estimates for the situation in question, because McDonald's workers in China probably earn less than the average wage for an urban worker, and I know that McDonald's pays more than minimum wage in the US, because I've worked fast food before). Could McDonald's really afford to more than double its wages for Chinese workers and still turn a profit? I find that very doubtful.

[Broletariat]

The really important question here is how capitalists can afford these higher wages. The average wage for an urban worker in China are around $6000 annually, while the minimum wage in the US comes to about $15,000 annually, (note that these are conservative estimates for the situation in question, because McDonald's workers in China probably earn less than the average wage for an urban worker, and I know that McDonald's pays more than minimum wage in the US, because I've worked fast food before). Could McDonald's really afford to more than double its wages for Chinese workers and still turn a profit? I find that very doubtful.

They bribe some parts of the proletariat with higher wages and stiff arm the rest of the proletariat with lower wages.

Where one up exists another down exists, the counteraction of the two is where you'll find Value.

This would be my guess.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I'm a relative newbie at this but my understanding is that value is at heart a social relationship.Aren't there other determinants of value besides productivity?The difference in the organic composition of capital would lower value in First World countries but wouldn't this be more than offset by other determinants, such as the differing costs of the reproduction of labor in First and Third World countries including the accustomed standard of living in the particular country or region where it exists?Value, including that of labor power, is embedded and produced within a network of social relations.

[Tim Finnegan]

Do we not, essentially, have a global market?
For certain commodities, if not all, yes, but I'm not sure what you mean to ask by that...?

(And apologies for the butchering of my last post- I hadn't yet seen your quoting of it- but I don't think that it changed anything essential.)


The really important question here is how capitalists can afford these higher wages. The average wage for an urban worker in China are around $6000 annually, while the minimum wage in the US comes to about $15,000 annually, (note that these are conservative estimates for the situation in question, because McDonald's workers in China probably earn less than the average wage for an urban worker, and I know that McDonald's pays more than minimum wage in the US, because I've worked fast food before). Could McDonald's really afford to more than double its wages for Chinese workers and still turn a profit? I find that very doubtful.
Again, this is a poor example. Restaurants of this sort operate in a highly localised market, and neither the exchange value of the commodities sold or the price paid for the labour power of the workers in two locations have any bearing on each other over such great distances. You'd have to compare two units of production with the same intended market.


They bribe some parts of the proletariat with higher wages and stiff arm the rest of the proletariat with lower wages.
"Higher" than what? The value of their labour power, presumably? That's really something that you'd need to demonstrate.

[Broletariat]

For certain commodities, if not all, yes, but I'm not sure what you mean to ask by that...?

(And apologies for the butchering of my last post- I hadn't yet seen your quoting of it- but I don't think that it changed anything essential.)


My reason for asking is that, if a global market exists then the whole "Certain locales" thing essentially goes out the window, aside from transportation costs and such right? Capitalism breaks down local barriers and opens up international markets from what I understand.

[Thug Lessons]

The price of the commodity of labour power does not correlate directly with the price of the commodity which is produced by the application of that labour. The workers receive different wages because the labour power which they are selling- in terms of quantity (i.e. time) and quality (i.e. the skill-level of their work)- has a different value in each locale. Rather, the exchange value of a commodity is defined by the socially necessary labour time of that commodity, which means that the exchange value varies depending on the market which the commodities are entered into. If two first-world and third-world-produced commodities are produced in the same manner and enter into the same market, the exchange value would average out as if they were produced in the same locale, with the result that the first-world-produced commodity will have a low profit margin because of high labour costs, while the third-world produced will have a high profit margin because of relatively low labour costs. In cases where they do not, as in your "Chinese and American McDonalds" example, the exchange values of the produced commodity will be determined locally.
The problem here is that the socially necessary labor time to produce a Big Mac in China is nearly the same as it is in the US. Your explanation here makes perfect sense, but it's based entirely on bourgeois economics where we're concerned only with the dynamics of the local market and disregard the role of SNLT in regulating exchange value entirely. This might seem like a pedantic criticism, but it isn't. If workers can achieve a far higher standard of living and capitalists can retain high profit margins while value production remains the same, then we should take the neoclassical approach, because SNLT doesn't seem to play much of a role at all.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I think my answer still suffices, value is the same, price is different.

WHY price is different is another matter. Could be because the labour movement in that first world country was harder to subdue, or that the tactic chosen to subdue the labour movement was bribery whereas in the third-world it was just strong-armed down.

Looking at the sorry state of the contemporary US labor movement and the fact that average US wages have remained static for the past 30 years while the mal distribution of wealth has dramatically increased does not lend credence to the belief that the US and western working classes are being "bought off". If bribery was part of the social contract this is not true any longer.In this age of austerity, when people from Scott Walker to David Cameron to Papandreou are busy attacking our living standards, this Third Worldism does not make sense. There has to be another dynamic going on.

Wouldn't the globalization of capital utilize the differing local production costs resulting from differing formations of value resulting from the "combined and uneven development" inherent in "geographical space"?

Imperialism and neo-colonialism certainly exists but I feel the Third Worldists have the wrong take on this.

[Tim Finnegan]

My reason for asking is that, if a global market exists then the whole "Certain locales" thing essentially goes out the window, aside from transportation costs and such right? Capitalism breaks down local barriers and opens up international markets from what I understand.
Again, for certain commodities, but I still don't see why this is a sticking point. As I said, the exchange value of wage labour is determined separately from the exchange value of commodities, so the fact that a product experiences a lowering in its socially necessary labour time is only relevant insofar as that influences the amount of money that a given capitalist is willing to pay for labour power. If a capitalist chooses to pay twice the money in the US that he could in Mexico for no other reason than personal preference then, well, more fool him.

[Thug Lessons]

I'm a relative newbie at this but my understanding is that value is at heart a social relationship.Aren't there other determinants of value besides productivity?The difference in the organic composition of capital would lower value in First World countries but wouldn't this be more than offset by other determinants, such as the differing costs of the reproduction of labor in First and Third World countries including the accustomed standard of living in the particular country or region where it exists?Value, including that of labor power, is embedded and produced within a network of social relations.
This is precisely the problem. If the standards of living can be pushed ever upward, (and I don't think there's any dispute that this could be done even in the US, at the very least through a more egalitarian distribution of wealth), while neither increasing the time workers devote to labor nor further developing the means of production, then we don't have a situation where the process of capitalist accumulation pushes wages towards baseline subsistence at all, but quite the opposite.

[ZeroNowhere]

Why is it that capitalists increase productivity, again?

[Lenina Rosenweg]

This is precisely the problem. If the standards of living can be pushed ever upward, (and I don't think there's any dispute that this could be done even in the US, at the very least through a more egalitarian distribution of wealth), while neither increasing the time workers devote to labor nor further developing the means of production, then we don't have a situation where the process of capitalist accumulation pushes wages towards baseline subsistence at all, but quite the opposite.

There's more to it than this though. This strategy wasn't followed.After the Long Boom ended in the 1970s US and other capitalist ruling classes opted for the opposite strategy, a period of intense devaluation, retrogression, "shock doctrine" both in the Third World and in the West.That's why we can see linkages between the struggles in Tahrir Square and Madison, which the workers involved were aware of.

China and other areas were brought online into the system of global capitalism, vastly increasing the labor supply and decreasing First world, especially US wage rates.A lose/lose strategy. A win/win strategy could have been followed but that wasn't in the cards.

[Thug Lessons]

Why is it that capitalists increase productivity, again?
They have to, because of competition between firms. When commodities are produced below the socially necessary labor time (through greater productivity) they can be sold for a lower price, and so will be more likely to realize their value in the market.

[Tim Finnegan]

The problem here is that the socially necessary labor time to produce a Big Mac in China is nearly the same as it is in the US. Your explanation here makes perfect sense, but it's based entirely on bourgeois economics where we're concerned only with the dynamics of the local market and disregard the role of SNLT in regulating exchange value entirely. This might seem like a pedantic criticism, but it isn't. If workers can achieve a far higher standard of living and capitalists can retain high profit margins while value production remains the same, then we should take the neoclassical approach, because SNLT doesn't seem to play much of a role at all.
It doesn't matter if a Big Mac produced in China and one produced in the US have the same socially necessary labour time, because those two characteristics are irrelevant to each other, in that the commodity in question will be traded in mutually isolated markets. Socially necessary labour time is determined by the aggregate of labour time invested in a certain commodity in a certain market, so if two commodities are not traded on a single market- which fast food really isn't- then they do not influence each other's socially necessary labour time. You need to pick an example in which the commodities enter a shared market, and so in which a single socially necessary labour time is established in the First and Third Worlds.

How much labour time it takes a person to make a sandwich in Beijing is of no relevance to me and my hypothetical sandwich shop, because nobody who I am selling to can buy those sandwiches, and so would play no role in establishing the socially necessary labour time and thus rate of profit of my sandwiches. If I produced televisions, however, it would be a different story, because televisions made in Beijing can also be purchased in my locale, and so the labour time invested in both my televisions and these other televisions would between them determine the socially necessary labour value of each, and so the rate of profit of each.

[Thug Lessons]

It doesn't matter if a Big Mac produced in China and one produced in the US have the same socially necessary labour time, because those two characteristics are irrelevant to each other, in that the commodity in question will be traded in mutually isolated markets. Socially necessary labour time is determined by the aggregate of labour time invested in a certain commodity in a certain market, so if two commodities are not traded on a single market- which fast food really isn't- then they do not influence each other's socially necessary labour time. You need to pick an example in which the commodities enter a shared market, and so in which a single socially necessary labour time is established in the First and Third Worlds.

How much labour time it takes a person to make a sandwich in Beijing is of no relevance to me and my hypothetical sandwich shop, because nobody who I am selling to can buy those sandwiches, and so would play no role in establishing the socially necessary labour time and thus rate of profit of my sandwiches. If I produced televisions, however, it would be a different story, because televisions made in Beijing can also be purchased in my locale, and so the labour time invested in both my televisions and these other televisions would between them determine the socially necessary labour value of each, and so the rate of profit of each.
Again, this is for the most part very reasonable. Yes, I agree, the reason wages are higher for fast food workers in Boston than Beijing is because these are different markets. This is perfect explanation as to how differing wage rates are possible, but does nothing to explain why they are different, which is what I'm trying to get at.

Anyway, I have to sleep soon, but I'll be back tomorrow.

[RGacky3]

I would say MORE surplus value is being taken from one and less is taken from the other, it also has to do with market forces, i.e. first world workers can demand higher wages, third world workers cannot, so due to that fact they have to pull out less surplus value.

It also depends on different factories such as the Labor to Capital ratio, generally in third world countires its higher due to the type of product, meaninig labor may have a higher cost, meaning it can effect the surplus value more.

[poststructuralistskengman]

Long live the victory of people's war.

[hatzel]

Here's a novel little idea for us all: in the modern world more than in any preceding era, value doesn't even exist independent of price. That is to say, the value is just a rough estimate of the amount one can reasonably expect to receive from selling a given product or service in a given place at a given time, based on the nature of the local market, the prevailing taste (or lack of it) for the product at hand, thus supply and demand, itself linked to the level of discretionary income etc. The value of the labour expended in making it is decided retroactively, based on the value of the product on the market, rather than the labour somehow contributing to the 'inherent' value of the product itself. That said, with the price people would be willing to pay for a television or hamburger established, it becomes clear that the discernible value of the labour expended in the creation of said product is its market price, minus the costs for materials or any other similar production costs. The value of the labour, therefore, varies according to the state of the market, whether the price of the product increases or decreases. As long as the capitalist ensures that the total wage bill does not exceed the phantom 'value' of his total production, minus other costs, he's in the black.

The price, in this case, is determined by market factors, meaning that the value of the labour is determined by the same factors. The same amount of labour expended on creating an aesthetically pleasing car may be deemed more valuable than the same amount of labour expended on a less aesthetically pleasing car, based entirely on the appeal of the final product; of course aesthetic tastes differ from market to market, and a car which sells well in Japan may not find many buyers here in Europe. At the same time, the same iPhone can sell for vastly different prices in different markets, meaning that the value of the labour expended on the production of a given iPhone depends entirely on the final destination, and where it will be sold.

Wait, what was Thug's question again? :confused: Ah yes! So of course, if a first-world factory produces an identical product to a third-world product, and sells them at the same price, then of course the phantom 'value' of the total labour expended that LTV-ists talk about is the same in each case, if we ignore difference in rents and perhaps material costs or taxation, as these just confuse it still further. Of course in the event of producing identical competing products, the company producing in the third world should have no problem undercutting that producing in the first world, if we assume that third world labour costs are considerably lower than those in the first world. The third world producer could reduce the cost of their product so that it is cheaper than the total costs endured in the first world, when it comes to material plus rent plus tax plus labour etc. etc. This will force the first world producer out of business unless he relocates, cuts costs (which in this case would most likely mean increasing efficiency) or modifies his product. This, of course, is if we assume that his product is identical and competing.

Interestingly enough, though, those products created in first world factories often aren't actually competing with third world products, irrespective of whether or not they are identical. I'm sure we're all aware of how much value is added to any given product by the brand on it...those first world products are often marketed as very high-end products, meaning they aren't considered to compete with the much cheaper products from third world factories. Perhaps more importantly, though, the sheer fact that they were made in the first world can even be used as a marketing ploy, to allow an identical product to be sold at a higher value, due to the image of the product as being of a higher quality. Of course there are very few products which coexist in this way (and the ploy might not last all that long), but the basic suggestion is there, and shows the basic principle that a product from the first world may have a higher perceived value, and thus higher price, than one from the third world.

This is one of the many reasons why highly automated production processes of high-value products, where labour costs are of less importance, are more prevalent in the first world. Cars, for example, can be quite happily produced in the first world, particularly when one takes import tariffs and government incentives into account, with little or no detrimental effects when it comes to the books. For an item of clothing (for example) made in the first world to compete financially with those made in the third world, however, it needs to occupy a different section of the market. If somebody comes to you with a pair of shoes or something, 'made by Wilson's of London, established 1754', you might find some people happily spending five times as much as they would for a shoe of equivalent quality made in some sweatshop in the Philippines. For many such 'prestige' companies, a certain amount of their value stems from their heritage of production in England, France or Italy. As such, the price they can expect to charge for their products could actually be seen to decrease if they were to shift production to the third world and relinquish their...wait for it...USP :) Balancing up the demand for these prestige products with the potential wider audience that could be attracted with a cheaper product remains a major point of contention when it comes to companies choosing to relocate, but it suffices to say that you won't survive all that long in Europe if you're marketing yourself as a provider of low-end tat to compete with third world markets.

I feel this whole post was rambling and devilishly inaccurate. I'm a sociologist, not an economist! I just thought that, as it was OI, nobody would care about my flagrant shortcomings and complete lack of understanding of the world of economy :lol:

[Tim Finnegan]

Again, this is for the most part very reasonable. Yes, I agree, the reason wages are higher for fast food workers in Boston than Beijing is because these are different markets. This is perfect explanation as to how differing wage rates are possible, but does nothing to explain why they are different, which is what I'm trying to get at.
Well, again, it must be remembered that the exchange value of labour power and the exchange value of produced commodities are calculated separately. The latter only determines the former insofar as it sets a peak on the what the capitalist can possibly hope to pay workers and still turn a profit. If two workers are producing for different markets, then it means that the exchange values of the commodities they produce will be unrelated, and so that their own "wage cap" will be unrelated. Thus, you can't directly compare their wages to any real end. You'd have to find an example in which two workers were producing identical commodities for the same market, and, as RabbiK mentions, that's something that very rarely happens these days.

[graymouser]

Again, this is for the most part very reasonable. Yes, I agree, the reason wages are higher for fast food workers in Boston than Beijing is because these are different markets. This is perfect explanation as to how differing wage rates are possible, but does nothing to explain why they are different, which is what I'm trying to get at.

Anyway, I have to sleep soon, but I'll be back tomorrow.
I think the two main factors are history, and the laws of combined and uneven development. Historically, the US and Western Europe were the places where capital had to build itself from nothing - and up through the mid 20th century, were the places with the highest concentrations of capital. Through these historic concentrations, workers were able to organize and in key periods drive their standards of living upward from the bare subsistence that is capital's natural preference. Up until the neoliberal period, these remained the core manufacturing centers in the world.

Neoliberalism has pushed forward in a dramatic way the laws of combined and uneven development. Modern factories are imported entirely into the countries where they sit, but through extreme pressure on the countries hosting them leave behind almost nothing except a pittance wage paid to employees. In many such factories even this is taken back by the employer, so literally nothing is contributed to the country where the factory is located. This has taken a long, sustained campaign by the imperialist countries to destroy the standards of living, labor and environmental laws and so forth in the countries where these factories sit like parasites. Liberal import regimes have made cash and staple crops virtually worthless in many places, forcing the poor farmers off the land and creating a "reserve army" of unemployed, many of whom live a marginal existence. In terms of volume 1 of Capital, this has meant a massive increase in absolute surplus-value through driving wages down to the floor. This has been the trend wherever large amounts of unskilled labor are needed.

At the same time, in the imperialist countries, there is still sustained manufacturing going on. However, technology has made productivity dramatically higher. Many plants that once would have needed thousands of workers now need a dozen or two, mostly highly trained workers, who work in factories filled with robotics. Watch the shows "How It's Made" and "How Do They Do It?" on the Science Channel sometime with an eye toward the class mechanics - it's amazing, these products that are built in very large numbers with a few dozen employees at most. When highly skilled labor is needed, capital has moved to increase the relative surplus-value at all costs.

This is the general trend: skilled labor sits precariously in the imperialist countries, and unskilled labor is exploited to the bone in the semi-colonial countries (and China, which doesn't fit either mold). What is interesting is that capital has prevented either from experiencing a general rise in their standard of living during the neoliberal period, and in the current crisis is fighting to move more workers into service jobs at much lower wages. It took four generations to build up the working class in the imperialist countries and may take another few for capitalism to totally tear them down.

What's interesting is that more and more manufacturers like the US South to base their operations. The standard of living, and commensurately the cost of living, is lower there, so workers can be bought more cheaply. At the same time the crisis is creating a "reserve army" to lower wages. I think this will make the dynamics of politics in the South much more interesting over the coming years.

[turquino]

The answer to why workers in the advanced imperialist nations have incomes many times greater than the oppressed nations won’t be found in their inherent productivity. Wages are unconnected to the productivity of labour. Workers receive wages for the sale of their labour-power commodity, not the actual labour used up. Marx’s analysis of piece wages is illustrative of this fact. When a worker is paid for each widget she produces, it would seem that the more productive she is at work, the higher her pay. But, suppose the capitalist introduces new machinery that doubles widget-making productivity, will the worker’s pay double because she is making twice as many widgets? No, of course not, the pay for each individual widget will be cut in half. The widget-making labour is merely the use-value of the labour-power sold to the capitalist. The value of labour-power is roughly equivalent to the basket of commodities a worker subsists on, not what the worker produces in a working day. One day’s worth of piece wages is just like one day’s worth of hourly wages: they are set by the value of the commodities that allow the worker to sell her labour-power for the day. The distinction between labour and labour-power, and the possibility of surplus value that arose from it, was Karl Marx’s single greatest contribution to the international workers movement. A world in which labourers’ incomes directly grow alongside productivity would not be capitalist.

[Thug Lessons]

Well, again, it must be remembered that the exchange value of labour power and the exchange value of produced commodities are calculated separately. The latter only determines the former insofar as it sets a peak on the what the capitalist can possibly hope to pay workers and still turn a profit. If two workers are producing for different markets, then it means that the exchange values of the commodities they produce will be unrelated, and so that their own "wage cap" will be unrelated. Thus, you can't directly compare their wages to any real end. You'd have to find an example in which two workers were producing identical commodities for the same market, and, as RabbiK mentions, that's something that very rarely happens these days.
I'd have to find an example of this to do what? Undermine the law of value? That's not my intention at all. What I'm trying to demonstrate here is that higher wages in the imperialist nations cannot be explain in terms of higher value production, (or at least not always, and almost never entirely), and that in specific cases like this they are entirely the result of value's realization. If we can come to any sort of consensus on that, then maybe we can move on to how and why this phenomenon occurs and how it plays out politically.

[Tim Finnegan]

I'd have to find an example of this to do what? Undermine the law of value? That's not my intention at all. What I'm trying to demonstrate here is that higher wages in the imperialist nations cannot be explain in terms of higher value production, (or at least not always, and almost never entirely), and that in specific cases like this they are entirely the result of value's realization. If we can come to any sort of consensus on that, then maybe we can move on to how and why this phenomenon occurs and how it plays out politically.
No, no, what I meant was that if you want to compare first-world and third-world wages, then you need to find an example in which the workers are doing both the same work and producing for the same market. The McDonalds example is not an effective comparison because the workers are producing for different markets, and therefore are irrelevant to each other, while in most cases of production for the same market, the workers are not doing the same work, i.e. they are producing different commodities.
If you wish to establish some intervention that distorts Western wages in favour of the workers, then you need to be able to compare the wages of two functionally equivalent workers in the First and Third world. Comparing workers who are not equivalent does not necessarily suggest any more distinction than can be accounted for by the difference in market or production.

Besides, "the first world" and "imperialist nations" are hardly interchangeable concepts. One could easily regard China as an imperialist state, but it would be hard to say the same of Iceland.

[Thug Lessons]

No, no, what I meant was that if you want to compare first-world and third-world wages, then you need to find an example in which the workers are doing both the same work and producing for the same market. The McDonalds example is not an effective comparison because the workers are producing for different markets, and therefore are irrelevant to each other, while in most cases of production for the same market, the workers are not doing the same work, i.e. they are producing different commodities.
If you wish to establish some intervention that distorts Western wages in favour of the workers, then you need to be able to compare the wages of two functionally equivalent workers in the First and Third world. Comparing workers who are not equivalent does not necessarily suggest any more distinction than can be accounted for by the difference in market or production.
Why? There's no particular reason that I can see that workers from different markets can't be compared. What I've done here is established a scenario where production, (or more specifically the production of labor power), is eliminated as a factor in explaining wages. If you want to argue that these differences are a result of market forces, then by all means do so, but simply pointing out that these are different markets doesn't explain anything by itself. There are McDonald's in Beijing, Washington DC and Paris, and these different markets are all paying different wages, and presumably this is happening for a reason.

As for wages being 'distorted in favor of Western workers', again, we haven't even gotten there yet.


Besides, "the first world" and "imperialist nations" are hardly interchangeable concepts. One could easily regard China as an imperialist state, but it would be hard to say the same of Iceland.There's really no accepted terminology I can use here. People will crap their pants over "first world" as well, even though it's a better term, and I'm trying to minimize that.

[Tim Finnegan]

Why? There's no particular reason that I can see that workers from different markets can't be compared. What I've done here is established a scenario where production, (or more specifically the production of labor power), is eliminated as a factor in explaining wages. If you want to argue that these differences are a result of market forces, then by all means do so, but simply pointing out that these are different markets doesn't explain anything by itself. There are McDonald's in Beijing, Washington DC and Paris, and these different markets are all paying different wages, and presumably this is happening for a reason.
Well, yeah, because, firstly, the cost of the reproduction of labour in those regions is different due to higher living standards, labour laws, etc., and, secondly, because the exchange value of the same commodity produced in those two location is different, thus creating a different peak exchange value for the relevant labour power.
It's very telling, I'd point out, that you're obliged to look for an example of localised production like that found in a McDonalds- those cases in which production would be identical and intended for the same market are largely resolved in favour of outsourcing labour to the Third World, thus making such comparisons invalid. The Third Worldist perspective was constructed when the West still engaged in simple manufacturing on a grand scale, and so such comparisons were possible. Today, the only real exceptions are those which tend to rely on their locally, regionally or nationally produced character as being a selling-point in itself, i.e. as constituting a use-value that legitimises a higher exchange value- American Apparel's conscious marketing as American-made and sweat-shop-free would probably be the most famous example- and so the higher wages of the workers are quite evidently subsidised by Western consumers.


As for wages being 'distorted in favor of Western workers', again, we haven't even gotten there yet.That's the very "Third Worldist" position that you referenced in your opening post, was it not? :confused:


There's really no accepted terminology I can use here. People will crap their pants over "first world" as well, even though it's a better term, and I'm trying to minimize that."Core" and "periphery" would probably be your best shot. That's the most universally applicable perspective, and doesn't rely on the presence of certain political relationships demanded by theories of imperialism.

[RGacky3]

If you want to argue that these differences are a result of market forces, then by all means do so, but simply pointing out that these are different markets doesn't explain anything by itself. There are McDonald's in Beijing, Washington DC and Paris, and these different markets are all paying different wages, and presumably this is happening for a reason.


The McDonalds in Washington DC and Paris can charge MORE for their hamburgers because you have a higher paid consumer base, also you also have a stronger labor market, people can demand more wages, and there are laws requiring certain wages.

In Beijing, you can't charge as much because of the lesser paid consumer base (unless your exclusively in a high end area), but you can also pay your workers a lot less, there is not law and no unions and so on.

Now in Beijing, chances are they are extracting more surplus value, because they can pay their workers less, and probably they cater too more middle classs people, so they don't have to drop prices that much. Thats the main difference.

however BOTH McDonalds make profits, Both extract surplus value and both suppress variable costs (like labor) as much as possible.

Mcdonalds is'nt a good example though, because it directly sells to consumers, so you NEED a consumer base, the factory that makes the boxes for example however, dose not need a consumer base in the country its operating in, so they have less incentive to operate in a place (without intervention) where workers have some power, because they'll be extracting LESS surplus value. Some production industries (non-consumer based) however require strong education, which you generally get in countries with a strong working class or social-democracy (where people can afford to go to school), those ones still extract surplus value.

[Struggle]

The problem is; the so called 'Maoist-Third Worldist' perspective of the relations between advanced Capitalist societies and the developing societies is nothing new; it is not the subject of ‘Maoism-Third Worldism’. They merely accepted the obvious, which is accepted by many Marxists and non-Marxists alike. In other words, many of what ‘Maoist-Third Worldists’ claim is not the product of their ideas, but instead the ideas of others, and hopefully everybody who has some understanding of international relations under a Capitalist system.

It does not take a genius to realise how workers in one country, often privileged countries such as Britain, act systematically in a reactionary way, hostile to others countries under the banner of nationalism, and putting ‘one’s own first’. As 'Classical Marxism' suggests, this is largely a result of false consciousness. The question is; in a world where so many people are dying with false consciousness contributing towards so many deaths, should those suffering from false consciousness, be forgiven?

Some of what ‘Maoist-Third Worldists’ claim is correct.; which is why it concerns me when I see others claiming to be under the branch of Communism so adamantly opposing them.

With that said, a lot of what Maoist-Third Worldist’s claim is incorrect and counter-productive, and they achieve the opposite of what they desire when preaching hatred against the 'First world people'.

[RGacky3]

There are also tons of third world workers that act in a reactionary way.

[nickdlc]

Do we not, essentially, have a global market?

We don't have one for labour, the most important market. Thankfully there is no free market in labour worldwide. Rich countries artificially keep their workers wages high because of immigration policy. If the billions of poorer workers could easily migrate to richer countries capitalists wouldn't have a reason to pay their workers so much. That's why capitalists set up shop in China to reap the benefits of cheap labour.