RE: [OPE] The availabilty of labor power in the context of expandedreproduction schemes

Dear Paul Z.,
 
Just so as to prevent possible misunderstanding on my part: Is your argument similar to Geert's claiming that the rising vcc will ensure the availability of labor power (a caricature of Geert's argument, I am aware) or to mine claiming that this argument is incompatible with at least one of the assumptions Marx calls upon for his model of expanded reproduction? Either way: thanks for the reference, I'll need to look into Luxemburg anyway and this seems a good place to start!
 
Kind regards,
 
Dirk.

________________________________

Van: ope-bounces@lists.csuchico.edu namens Paul Zarembka
Verzonden: wo 15-7-2009 13:50
Aan: Outline on Political Economy mailing list
Onderwerp: Re: [OPE] The availabilty of labor power in the context of expandedreproduction schemes

Dirk,

I have made a very similar argument as part of my "Late Marx and
Luxemburg: Opening a Development within Political Economy", /Rosa
Luxemburg and the Critique of Political Economy/, Edited by *Riccardo
Bellofiore, Routledge, 2009. pp. 64-80. This has antecedents in earlier
work of mine cited in that chapter. I also have in draft a more
elaborated discussion and a survey of empirical work suggesting that the
composition of capital doesn't show a trend, thus making the issue
raised even more poignant.*
**
Paul

Damsma, D.F. wrote:
> I am currently investigating whether the assumptions Marx makes for
> his scheme (model) of expanded reproduction, are dialectically
> warranted. The last assumption Marx makes is that labor power is
> always on hand (Mega II/11.1: 801-802; cf. Mega II/12.1: 463). In
> arguing for the adoption of this assumption, Marx refers back to
> /Capital I./ According to our list member Geert Reuten (2004) in one
> of his contributions to /The constitution of Capital: Essays on Volume
> I of Marx's Capital,/ however, the argument in /Capital I/ crucially
> depends on capital's use of labor expulsion techniques and the
> concomittant rise in the value composition of capital. But in the
> context of Marx's schemes of reproduction the vcc is assumed to be
> constant. So, it seems that the argument Marx developed in /Capital I
> /cannot be applied in the context of his schemes of reproduction and
> he needs other grounds to argue for the adoption of this assumption
> here. But, since Marx's reference is not all that explicit, it may be
> that he aimed at an other part of /Capital I/. I'd love to hear your
> thoughts on this. Is my analysis correct? Am I missing something? What
> else could Marx be referring to? Thanks in advance!
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Dirk.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> ope mailing list
> ope@lists.csuchico.edu
> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
>

--
=====
(V23)  THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF 9-11, Seven Stories Press softcover, 2008 2nd ed
(V24)  TRANSITIONS IN LATIN AMERICA .... (V25) WHY CAPITALISM SURVIVES CRISES
====>   Research in Political Economy, Emerald Group, Bingley, UK
====>   http://www.buffalo.edu/~zarembka/
_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope

_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope