[ show plain text ]
From: "Michael Williams" <mwilliam@dmu.ac.uk>
Subject: RE: [OPE-L:2308] value form and m-c-m'
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2000 19:35:51 -0000
----- Original Message -----
From: clyder <wpc@dcs.gla.ac.uk>
To: <ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu>
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2000 10:20 AM
Subject: [OPE-L:2308] Re: Re: Re: value form and m-c-m'
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Gil Skillman <gskillman@mail.wesleyan.edu>
> To: <ope-l@galaxy.csuchico.edu>
> Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2000 11:02 PM
> Subject: [OPE-L:2304] Re: Re: value form and m-c-m'
Gil:
> > Here's one way of answering: the validity of the "fundamental Marxian
> > theorem", which asserts the logical equivalence of positive rate of
profit
> > (in real or monetary units) and positive rate of exploitation (in labor
> > units) does not depend one way or another on the proposition that labor
> > "regulates" prices. Viewed from this angle, this significance of
surplus
> > labor for the existence of profit is logically independent of the latter
> > hypothesis. Gil
> >
Paul:
> How do you define rate of exploitation independently of money profits
> in that case?
You can *define* it in terms of the ratio of unpaid to paid labour, since if
labour is the only source valorisation, this must typically be > 0. You can
no doubt approximately *measure* it in terms of this ratio in some 'typical'
capitalist enterprise. But the only way it is in fact measured is as the
(difference between money value-added and money wages)/money value-added.
None of this is incompatible with the notion that unless capitals pump
sufficient labour out of the labour power they have bought, they will not be
profitable.
Michael
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 21 2000 - 09:47:45 EDT