* From: Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:jdevine03
> Charles Brown wrote: > > So the the lump of labor fallacy is a fallacy ? Due to my ideological blinkers, I had a hard time getting my mind around Tom's emphasis on the LOL fallacy, so maybe it would help if I used an analogy to explain my understanding. I hope that Tom will correct me if I'm wrong. The idea of the LOLF is similar to the idea that "critics of capitalism are tools of the USSR" (replace USSR with al Qaeda today) or that "Marxists believe that relative prices are determined directly by relative labor-values." Establishmentarian types bring out this kind of assertion as being their (mis)understanding of what we think. It's also a strawperson that's used to discredit leftist critics. If you're a critic of capitalism, you suffer from Russophilia (or are soft on terrorism) or believe in the discredited "labor theory of value" (using the establishmentarian's definition). If you think that labor-hours per worker should be reduced, you suffer from the LOLF. But few or any critics of capitalism are Russophiliacs, terror-mongers, simplistic users of the LTV, or adherents of the LOLF. ^^^^^^ Lets see , shorter work week with no cut in pay: Use the reduction in socially necessary labor time had through increased efficiencies of scientific and technological innovation in the instruments of production to lessen the toil for workers rather than to increase profits. Or increase the number of jobs by cutting overtime. Does the LOLF hold that the second rationale for reducing hours is based on an error in understanding of the economics of it ?
