Paul
A further point. Relative surplus value is not involved here. The
increase in s/v comes about because c is reducing as a result of the
increase in unproductive labour, thereby increasing labour value added
(v+s) if c+v+s is unchanged and s/v if v does not keep pace with s.
If all labour were suddenly to be deemed unproductive, capitalism be
completely unaffected.
The point is that the value description changes markedly when all that
is going on is de-industrialisation, i.e. less metal-bashing.
Choosing anything other than 100% productive labour is a matter of
taste. Choosing 100%, just dropping the whole idea of unproductive
labour, avoids issues that cannot be settled either theoretically or
empirically.
On Sat, 2009-10-17 at 11:29 -0400, Paul Zarembka wrote:
> Phil,
>
> At least since Wolff's work 30+ years ago, those working in the area are
> aware of what you describe. However, I disagree that it could be a
> simple matter of 'taste'. If it were, then a researcher is freed to
> adjust his or her 'taste' to obtain some result desired (e.g., about the
> falling rate of profit). Indeed, a lot of that goes on in empirical
> work throughout economics.
>
> In Kliman's current empirical work, I was struck by the simple absence
> of discussion to ignore unproductive labor, when we know that it was
> discussed a lot by Marx. While complex topic and increases a
> researcher's data task enormously, but it can be done. It is still up
> at 911truth.org .
>
> Paul
_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
Received on Sat Oct 17 13:31:37 2009
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Oct 31 2009 - 00:00:02 EDT