[ show plain text ]
Dear Chris,
I'm afraid this is probably going to be an issue on which we are going to
have to disagree.
There is a semantic level at which I agree with the preceding debate--that
the dialectical opposition in the commodity is strictly speaking between
use-value and value, rather than use-value and exchange-value, since as
Marx put it, exchange-value is the mere form whereas value is the
substance. However, it is pedagically easier to start with the proposition
as Marx first put it, "Is not value to be conceived as the unity of use
value and exchange value? In and for itself, is value as such the general
form, in opposition to use value and exchange value as particular forms of
it?" (Grundrisse: 267), and to delve into the above nuance later.
However, and correct me if I read you wrongly on this, I take you to mean
by Marx being wrong on the "abstract opposition of exchange value and use
value", that use-value only matters in the "concrete" case of "the twofold
*character* of *labour*". In other words, the opposition of use-value and
value only has economic significance in the case of the "commodity"
labor-power. On that front, I disagree.
I think you justify this--again correct me if I am wrong--by associations
such as the one you cite: "For money as capital, labour capacity is the
immediate use value for which it has to exchange itself. In simple
circulation, the content of the use value was indifferent, dropped out of
the economic determination of form. Here it is its essential economic moment."
In my reading of Marx (and that of Rosdolsky, Groll, Nicolaus and a few
others), the distinction Marx is making is not between the role of
use-value in the case of labor-power, and its role in all other commodities
(save money), but its role in M--C--M+ versus its role in C--M--C.
In this reading, the role of the dialectic in disclosing the source of
surplus-value is only one of a myriad of uses. For a good overview of
these, see Groll, S., 1980. "The active role of `use-value' in Marx's
economics", History of Political Economy, Vol 12 No. 3, pp. 336-371.
This reading turns the table on one aspect of your comment. You state:
>Not only that but profitable sale: here
>labour power has exceptional status. For in the case of this "commodity" it
>is simply not true that "its owner does not relate to it as use value".
>This is because the use value of labour is inseparable from its owner. Thus
>we have "springing" from this 'form determination' a specific economic
>relation, wage slavery.
In fact, the unique property of labor-power, that this commodity is
inseparable from its seller, was a reason which Marx post-Grundrisse gave,
not for explaining the source exploitation, but for arguing that the value
of labor-power would be the *minimum* wage.
In other words, rather than this unique difference between labor-power and
all other commodities explaining why labor was the sole source of
surplus-value, it was a reason why labor-power was one of several
commodities which could be expected to systematically exchange for *more*
than its value. Whenever Marx considered the relationship between the wage
and the value of labor-power, the term he used was not "average", but
"minimum" (Marx 1861, Part I, p. 46; 1846, p. 55; 1861, Part II, p. 223;
Meek 1973, pp. ix-x, citing correspondence from Marx to Engels)
I expect this is a controversial statement. To back it up, check the above
citations. Here is a representative quotation; in a section of the
Grundrisse entitled "The minimum of wages", Marx made it clear that in his
complete analysis, the wage would normally *exceed* the value of
labor-power: "For the time being, necessary labor supposed as such; i.e.
that the worker always obtains only the minimum of wages. This supposition
is necessary, of course, so as to establish the laws of profit in so far as
they are not determined by the rise and fall of wages or by the influence
of landed property. All these fixed suppositions themselves become fluid in
the further course of development." (Marx 1857, p. 817.)
So I contend that Marx was quite correct to work at the abstract level in
his use-value-exchange-value/value dialectics in deriving the source of
surplus value. The unique attribute of labor-power became the source of
another, derivative dialectic, that labor-power (like several other
commodities, including money) is both a commodity and a non-commodity. This
explains a dynamic of the wage and income distribution (which turns up in
Ch 25 Section 3 in Marx's famous growth cycle model--which is, I would
argue, rather inexplicable in the context of the standard interpretation of
the source of surplus value).
There is, however, a dilemma in this, with which I'm quite comfortable, but
I know most Marxists are not.
Cheers,
Steve
At 05:06 PM 2/27/00 +0000, you wrote:
>Re, Nicky, Steve, Ernesto
>It is a pity Steve K [2425] finishes this discussion with a quotation
>(Gr.881) which takes us back to square one in that it asserts the abstract
>opposition of exchange value and use value. I had thought the whole point
>of the earlier exchange was that Marx had been at fault for asserting this
>without qualification. thereby opening the door to Wagner's reply. The key
>feature of Marx's riposte is that:
>"On the other hand, the obscurantist has overlooked that my analysis of the
>commodity does not stop at the dual mode in which the commodity is
>presented, [but] presses forward [so] that in the dual nature of the
>commodity there is presented the twofold *character* of *labour*, whose
>product it is: *useful* labour, i.e., the concrete modes of labour, which
>create use values, and abstract *labour, labour as the
>expenditure of labour-power*,... that *surplus value* itself is derived
>from a `specific' *use-value of labour-power* which belongs to it
>exclusively etc etc., that hence with me use value plays an important role
>completely different than [it did]] in previous [political] economy, but
>that, *nota bene*, it only comes into the picture where such consideration
>[of value, use value, etc.] springs from the analysis of given economic
>forms, not from helter-skelter quibbling over the concepts or words
>`use-value' and `value'."(Wagner: p. 200.)
>This is also stated in the Grundrisse and in the original text of 1859:
>"For money as capital, labour capacity is the immediate use value for
>which it has to exchange itself. In simple circulation, the content of the
>use value was indifferent, dropped out of the economic determination of
>form. Here it is its essential economic moment."
>Note here that "material" use value is not now abstractly opposed to the
>specifically "social form" of value but is itself as "social use value" a
>determinant of economic form. Substantively it enters in when capital
>acquires factors of production whose use value character must permit the
>production of saleable commodities. Not only that but profitable sale: here
>labour power has exceptional status. For in the case of this "commodity" it
>is simply not true that "its owner does not relate to it as use value".
>This is because the use value of labour is inseparable from its owner. Thus
>we have "springing" from this 'form determination' a specific economic
>relation, wage slavery. As Ernesto S said [23/02] there arises a power
>relation in which labour has to be extracted from the worker. At the heart
>of the capital relation is not the peaceful juridical transfer of a
>commodity (as the labour contract superficially suggests) but continual
>contestation of its exploitation. Thus the use value of this "commodity"
>(labour productivity) is not secured ex ante but only known ex post as a
>result. To answer Steve K this is precisely why value is constituted
>through the (ex)appropriation of labour.
>in solidarity
>
>Chris A
>
>>Thanks Nicky,
>>
>>Yes, it's a fair comment that Marx's exposition of the commodity is Capital
>>is less clear, and less obviously central to his analysis, than in other
>>works not written for publication.
>>
>>The possible cause of this is that Marx was disappointed by the reception
>>accorded to "Contribution"--which he refers to as the "Preface to Capital"
>>in "Wagner". He thought it would shake the foundations, but it was regarded
>>as obscure by friend and foe alike.
>>
>>So he tried to improve the reception of Capital by making it more
>>"populist"--and in that, he undoubtedly succeeded. We wouldn't have OPE if
>>he hadn't. But he obscured his fundamental dialectical logic in the
>>process, and it's much clearer in Wagner, the Grundrisse, etc., than in
>>Capital I.
>>
>>One of the best such statements is almost the final word in the Grundrisse,
>>which Marx marked "to be brought forward":
>>
>>"The first category in which bourgeois wealth presents itself is that of
>>the *commodity*. The commodity itself appears as unity of two aspects. It
>>is *use value*, i.e. object of the satisfaction of any system whatever of
>>human needs. This is its material side, which the most disparate epochs of
>>production may have in common, and whose examination therefore lies beyond
>>political economy. Use value falls within the realm of political economy as
>>soon as it becomes modified by the modern relations of production, or as
>>it, in turn, intervenes to modify them... Now how does use value become
>>transformed into commodity? Vehicle of *exchange value*. Although directly
>>united in the commodity, use value and exchange value just as directly
>>split apart. Not only does the exchange value not appear as determined by
>>the use value, but rather furthermore, the commodity only becomes a
>>commodity, only realises itself as exchange value, in so far as its owner
>>does not relate to it as use value." (Grundrisse p. 881)
>>
>>Unfortunately, nothing so clear was written in either the Contribution or
>>Capital I.
>>
>>cheers,
>>Steve
>>At 03:18 AM 2/26/00 +0800, you wrote:
>>>Thanx Steve K, for your terrific exposition on labour power as a commodity
>>>(OPE-L; 2403). It is interesting that you make use of Marx's Notes on
>>>Adolph Wagner, where Marx makes (to my knowledge) his strongest case for a
>>>concept of 'social use value'.
>>>
>>>The argument goes like this: Commodites are products produced for the use
>>>of others (they are *social use values*). As a concept pertaining to the
>>>useful properties of *commodities* the concept of use-value must acquire in
>>>addition to its natural properties, a particular social form. Marx,
>>>stressed the point:
>>>
>>>"A thing can be useful and be the product of human labour, without being a
>>>commodity. Whoever satisfies his own need through his product, does create
>>>use-value, but not a commodity. In order to produce a commodity, he must
>>>not only produce *use-value, but use-value for others, social use-value*…So
>>>use-value itself - as the use-value of the 'commodity' - possesses an
>>>historically specific character' (Marx, 1979-80, p.199; **Marx's italics).
>>>
>>>I think that the argument for an historical 'social' concept of use-value,
>>>is important in the context of Marx's dispute with Ricardo on the price of
>>>labour. According to Marx, Ricardo cannot explain the divergence between
>>>the quantity and value of the labour embodied in commodities: 'Ricardo has
>>>in fact no answer… He determines value here, in one of the basic
>>>propositions of the whole system, by demand and supply - as Say notes with
>>>malicious pleasure' (Marx, TSV 2, p.400).
>>>
>>>Ricardo's failure to explain how surplus value can arise - given the
>>>proposition of equal exchange - Marx puts down to a failure to distinguish
>>>between two different *forms* taken by useful labour in capitalism. On the
>>>one hand, useful labour is a quantity of expended human energy, embodied in
>>>commodities and consumed ex post following exchange: it is *materialised
>>>labour*. On the other hand, labour-power exists in commodity-form as
>>>*living labour*, consumed ex ante in production. Opposition between the
>>>bodily expression of useful labour and its commodification in the form of
>>>labour-power explains why the 'law' of equal exchange does not apply:
>>>'surplus value itself is derived from a specific use-value of labour-power
>>>which belongs to it exclusively' (Marx, 1879-80, p.200).
>>>
>>>The concept of 'social use-value' looks to be a crucial element of a theory
>>>of capitalism as a system of commodity production based on wage labour. As
>>>Marx, himself, commented in his Notes on Adolph Wagner: 'only an
>>>obscurantist' could fail to recognise that the commodity is an
>>>'historically specific' form of use-value, 'the simplest social form in
>>>which the labour product is presented in contemporary society' (Notes on W,
>>>1879-80, p.198). As a commodity, labour-power is itself a 'social
>>>use-value' - a very important one since it creates value.
>>>
>>>Unfortunately, the social character of the commodity-form of use-value is
>>>less clear in *Capital*. Having described use-value as a natural quality
>>>of 'usefulness' constituting the 'content of wealth, whatever its social
>>>form may be', Marx turns immediately to the 'form of society' in which
>>>these natural use-values (products) assume a social relation as
>>>commodities: as exchange values (C1, 1976, p.126). Perhaps this lack of
>>>clarity explains why the idea of labour-power as a special commodity (as a
>>>social use-value) isn't well understood.
>>>comradely,
>>>Nicky
>>>------------------------------------
>>>At 07:53 24/02/00 +1100, you wrote:
>
>>>>marx had much the sort of hypothetical conversation you develop with
>>>>Ricardo--in which case Marx played the role of Samuelson. He didn't need
>>>>any help from OPE, as it happens! Instead, OPE needs to read him a bit
more
>>>>carefully!
>>>>
>>>>The position you ascribe to Marx, he actually ascribes to Ricardo (of the
>>>>single "c"!), and in one of my favourite lines, notes that "Ricardo has in
>>>>fact no answer, other than ... the law of supply and demand ... He
>>>>determines *value* here, in one of the basic propositions of the whole
>>>>system, by *demand and supply*---as Say notes with malicious pleasure."
>>>>
>>>>Marx's "conversation" with Ricardo, from Theories of Surplus Value Vol.
II,
>>>>is reproduced between the dashes:
>>>>----------------------------------
>>>>15.2.1 Quantity of labour and value of labour. [As presented by Ricardo
>>>>the problem of the exchange of labour for capital cannot be solved]
>>>>
>>>>"It is clear that the proportional quantity of labour contained in two
>>>>commodities A and B, is absolutely unaffected by whether the workers who
>>>>produce A and B receive much or little of the product of their labour. The
>>>>value of A and B is determined by the *quantity of labour* which their
>>>>production costs, and not by the *costs of labour* to the owners of A and
>>>>B. Quantity of labour and value of labour are two different
things."(TSV 2:
>>>>p. 395)
>>>>
>>>>"Now wage-labour, however, is a *commodity*. It is even the basis on which
>>>>the production of *products* as
>>>>*commodities* takes place. The *law of values* is not applicable to it.
>>>>Capitalist production therefore is not governed at all by this law... The
>>>>second ... [problem] ... lies in the fact that the *utilisation* of a
>>>>commodity (as capital) is proportional not to the amount of labour it
>>>>contains, but to the extent to which it commands the *labour of others*,
>>>>gives power over *more* labour than it itself contains. This in fact is a
>>>>second latent reason for asserting that since the beginning of capitalist
>>>>production, the value of commodities is determined not by the labour they
>>>>contain but by the living labour which they command, in other words, by
the
>>>>*value of labour*."(TSV 2: p. 397)
>>>>
>>>>"But how does the commodity labour differ from other commodities? One is
>>>>*living labour* and the other *materialised* labour. They are, therefore,
>>>>only two different forms of labour. Since the difference is only a matter
>>>>of form, why should a law apply to one and not to the other? Ricardo does
>>>>not answer---he does not even raise this question."(TSV 2: pp. 397-98)
>>>>
>>>>"The question is just why *labour* and the *commodities against which
it is
>>>>exchanged*, do not exchange according to the law of value, i.e. according
>>>>to the relative quantities of labour. Posed in this way, *presupposing the
>>>>law of value*, the question is intrinsically insoluble, because
*labour* as
>>>>such is counterposed to *commodity*..."(TSV 2: p. 398)
>>>>
>>>>15.2.2 @subsection = Value of labour power. Value of labour. [Ricardo's
>>>>confusion of labour with labour-power. Concept of the "natural price of
>>>>labour".
>>>>
>>>>Summarising Ricardo, Marx says that in Ricardo's system "The *value of
>>>>labour* is therefore determined by the *means of subsistence* which, in a
>>>>given society, are traditionally *necessary* for the maintenance and
>>>>reproduction of the labourers.
>>>>
>>>>But why? By what law is the *value of labour* determined in this way?
>>>>Ricardo has in fact no answer, other than ... the law of supply and demand
>>>>... He determines *value* here, in one of the basic propositions of the
>>>>whole system, by *demand and supply*---as Say notes with malicious
>>>>pleasure."(TSV 2: p. 400)
>>>>
>>>>"As wages are equal to the necessary means of subsistence,... If the value
>>>>of the means of subsistence changes, then the value of the real wage
>>>>changes... And here we have the *hidden reason* for Adam Smith's
assertion,
>>>>that as soon as capital, and consequently wage labour, intervenes, the
>>>>value of the product is not regulated by the quantity of labour bestowed
>>>>upon it, but by the quantity of labour it can command. The value of corn
>>>>determined by labour-time, changes; but, so long as the natural price of
>>>>labour is paid, the quantity of
>>>>labour that the quarter of corn can command remains the same. "(TSV 2: p.
>>>>401)
>>>>
>>>>15.2.3 @subsection = Surplus-value. [An analysis of the source of surplus
>>>>value is lacking in Ricardo's work. His concept of the working day as a
>>>>fixed magnitude.]
>>>>
>>>>"Apart from the confusion between labour and labour-power, Ricardo defines
>>>>the average wages or the value of labour correctly. For he says that it is
>>>>determined ... by the *labour-time which it costs to produce it*; that is,
>>>>by the *quantity of labour materialised* in the means of subsistence of
the
>>>>labourer."(TSV 2: p. 404)
>>>>
>>>>However Marx argues that he failed to show that only part of the worker's
>>>>working day is used to reproduce this value, while another part becomes
>>>>surplus-value.
>>>>
>>>>"Ricardo starts out from the actual fact of capitalist production. The
>>>>value of labour is smaller than the value of the product which it
>>>>creates.... The excess of the value of the product *over* the value of the
>>>>wages is the surplus-value.... For him, it is a fact, that the value of
the
>>>>product is greater than the value of the wages. How this fact arises,
>>>>remains unclear. The total working-day *is greater* than that part of the
>>>>working day which is required for the production of wages. Why? That does
>>>>not emerge."(TSV 2: pp. 405-06)
>>>>
>>>>----------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>Typically, Marx does not provide his own answer clearly at this point
(what
>>>>Marx really lacked was a good editor!). Instead, you can find a reasonable
>>>>didactic statement of it in his critique of Wagner (between the dashes
>>>again):
>>>>
>>>>----------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>"Secondly, only an obscurantist, who has not understood a word of
>>>>*Capital*, can conclude: Because Marx, in a note to the first edition of
>>>>*Capital*, overthrows all the German professorial twaddle on
`use-value' in
>>>>general, and refers readers who want to know something about actual
>>>>use-value to `commercial guides',---therefore, *use-value* does not play
>>>>any role in his work...."(Wagner: p. 198-99.)
>>>>
>>>>"Whoever satisfies his own need through his product, does create a use
>>>>value, but not a commodity. In order to produce a commodity, *he must not
>>>>only produce a use value,* but *use-value for others, social use
value*. So
>>>>use value itself---as the use value of the `commodity'---possesses an
>>>>historically specific character."(Wagner: p. 199.)
>>>>
>>>>"On the other hand, the obscurantist has overlooked that my analysis of
the
>>>>commodity does not stop at the dual mode in which the commodity is
>>>>presented, [but] presses forward [so] that in the dual nature of the
>>>>commodity there is presented the twofold *character* of *labour*, whose
>>>>product it is: *useful* labour, i.e., the concrete modes of labour, which
>>>>create use values, and abstract *labour, labour as the
>>>>expenditure of labour-power*,... that *surplus value* itself is derived
>>>>from a `specific' *use-value of
>>>>labour-power* which belongs to it exclusively etc etc., that hence with me
>>>>use value plays an important role completely different than [it did]] in
>>>>previous [political] economy, but that, *nota bene*, it only comes into
the
>>>>picture where such consideration [of value, use value, etc.] springs from
>>>>the analysis of given economic forms, not from helter-skelter quibbling
>>>>over the concepts or words `use-value' and `value'."(Wagner: p. 200.)
>>>>
>>>>----------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>Marx's "way out", in other words, is not that labor is not a commodity,
but
>>>>an analysis of the commodity itself which differs from any preceding
>>>>commodity, and in which the concept of use-value is crucial. The best
>>>>statement of that is in Capital I:
>>>>
>>>>----------------------------------
>>>>The past labour that is embodied in the labour-power, and the living
labour
>>>>that it can call into action; the daily cost of maintaining it, and its
>>>>daily expenditure in work, are two totally different things. The former
>>>>determines the exchange value of the labour-power, the latter is its use
>>>>value. The fact that half a [working] day's labour is necessary to keep
the
>>>>labourer alive during 24 hours, does not in any way prevent him from
>>>>working a whole day. Therefore, the value of labour-power, and the value
>>>>which that labour-power creates in the labour process, are two entirely
>>>>different magnitudes; and this difference of the two values was what the
>>>>capitalist had in view, when he was purchasing the labour-power... What
>>>>really influenced him was the specific use-value which this commodity
>>>>possesses of being a source not only of value, but of more value than it
>>>>has itself. This is the special service that the capitalist expects from
>>>>labour-power, and in this transaction he acts in accordance with the
>>>>'eternal laws' of the exchange of commodities. The seller of labour-power,
>>>>like the seller of any other commodity, realises its exchange-value, and
>>>>parts with its use-value. (Capital I: p. 188)
>>>>----------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>Finally, Marx's reason is somewhat clearer: his analysis of why
>>>>surplus-value arises from labor/labor-power is derived from a
(dialectical)
>>>>analysis of the commodity, in which the concepts of use-value and
>>>>exchange-value are essential. The basic notion is that a consumer of *any*
>>>>commodity in capitalism pays a commodity's exchange-value in order to
>>>>commandeer its use-value. As to why this distinction exists, we have to
>>>>turn to earlier in Vol I:
>>>>
>>>>----------------------------------
>>>>"The exchange of commodities, therefore, first begins on the boundaries of
>>>>such communities, at their points of contact with other similar
>>>>communities, or with members of the latter. So soon, however, as products
>>>>once become commodities in the external relations of a community, they
>>>>also, by reaction, become so in its internal intercourse. The proportions
>>>>in which they are exchangeable are at first quite a matter of chance. What
>>>>makes them exchangeable is the mutual desire of their owners to alienate
>>>>them. Meantime the need for foreign objects of utility gradually
>>>>establishes itself. The constant repetition of exchange makes it a normal
>>>>social act. In the course of time, therefore, some portion at least of the
>>>>products of labour must be produced with a special view to exchange. From
>>>>that moment the distinction becomes firmly established between the utility
>>>>of an object for the purposes of consumption, and its utility for the
>>>>purposes of exchange. Its use-value becomes distinguished from its
>>>>exchange-value. On the other hand, the quantitative proportion in which
the
>>>>articles are exchangeable, becomes dependent on their production itself."
>>>>(Capital I: p. 91)
>>>>----------------------------------
>>>>
>>>>Marx's analysis of the commodity therefore is his "way out", with his
>>>>argument being that the labor exchange is like that of any other
commodity,
>>>>but that this commodity has the peculiar attribute that its use-value to
>>>>its capitalist consumer is not qualitative but quantitative. Since the
>>>>general rules of commodity exchange, according to marx, mean that
use-value
>>>>and exchange-value are incommensurable, this translates to a quantitative
>>>>difference between the two in the case of this exchange, and this is the
>>>>source of surplus value.
>>>>
>>>>However, I argue that this "way out" generates another dilemma for Marx
>>>>which he can't solve: how to prove that labor/labor-power is the only
>>>>commodity to which this applies.
>>>>
>>>>Cheers,
>>>>Steve
>>>>
>>>>At 01:29 PM 2/23/00 -0500, you wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>>Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 19:17:07 +0100
>>>>>From: Ernesto Screpanti <screpanti@unisi.it>
>>>>>
>>>>>Dear comrades,
>>>>>
>>>>>It seems to me that the discussion on the employment contract is going in
>>>>>several directions that, although very interesting, are inducing us to
lose
>>>>>focus on the real theoretical problem. Therefore I hope you will allow me
>>>>>to try to redress the discussion. And let me start with an attempt to
>>>>>bring to light two important theoretical difficulties of Marx's
theories of
>>>>>exploitation and class. These are the problems that prompted my research
>>>>>agenda on the employment contract.
>>>>>
>>>>>1. The "labour-power value" paradox. Marx and Engels assume the so called
>>>>>"law of value" or "low of exchange", whereby any commodity is paid in the
>>>>>market its real value (to avoid entering the TLV question, let me assume
>>>>>that commoditities exchange at production prices). Competition brings
about
>>>>>this result. Marx and Engels make this assumption to make sure that the
>>>>>analysis of exploitation is focused on production conditions and not on
>>>>>unequal exchange in the market. In analytical terms the law of value
can be
>>>>>reformualte as follows: The price of any commodity coincides with its
>>>>>production costs and with the present value of its future streams of
>>>>services.
>>>>>The question is: Where does a positive profit come out if labour
power too
>>>>>is a commodity? If competition compels it to receive a price coinciding
>>>>>with the present value of its future streems of services, there can be no
>>>>>exploitation. Marx would answer - If the capitalists earn no profit they
>>>>>reduce investments, the industrial reserve army rises, etc. etc.
Therefore
>>>>>the capitalist must earn at least a "normal" profit.
>>>>>Samuleson would answer: Oh, yes! This precisely what I say. In fact the
>>>>>normal profit in competitive equilibrium is nil.
>>>>>Marx - But the value of labour power is a subsistence wage.
>>>>>Samuelson - But certainly not a purely physical subsistence.
>>>>>Marx - Certainly not. There are habits and customs and trade unions and
>>>>>bargaining.
>>>>>Samuelson - No. You assumed comnpetition. Therefore no bargaining.
>>>>>Marx: OK. So what?
>>>>>Samuelson - The long run equilibrium prices are fixed by the forces of
>>>>>competition at the level that makes them coincide with the cost of
>>>>>production. The value of labour power must be established accordingly, if
>>>>>labour power is a commodity. And also the production conditions of labour
>>>>>power must be determined accordingly
>>>>>Enters Veblen - Pricesely what I say: Habits and customs are
endogenous in
>>>>>the long run.
>>>>>Marx - Yes, but I insist: so what?
>>>>>Samuelson - If there is a positive profit, investements increase, the
>>>>>industrial reserve army shrinks and wages (and habits and customs, in the
>>>>>long run, and therefore the real production cost of labour power) rise to
>>>>>their equilibrium value. When they reach this value profits must be nil.
>>>>>Marx - But the subsistence wage changes slowly, certainly much slower
than
>>>>>the the market prices of the other commodities.
>>>>>Samuelson - This means that the law of value, that you assumed to avoid
>>>>>explaining exploitation as a production phenomen and not as a market
>>>>>phenomen, does not apply to labour power. You can account for
exploitation
>>>>>only if the law of value does not apply to labour power.
>>>>>Marx - what does that mean?
>>>>>Samuelson - It means that you are explaing exploitation as a market
>>>>>phenomenon: there is exploitation because there is no perfect competition
>>>>>in the labour market!
>>>>>Marx - OPEL comrades, help!
>>>>>
>>>>>Screpanti - there is only one way out: Labour power is not a
commodity. The
>>>>>wage is not a price of a commodity. The labour market does not exist.
Trade
>>>>>Unions and labour movements do exists. Exploitation is the consequence of
>>>>>the exercise of power in the labour process. It occurs because the wage
>>>>>rate is fixed through bargaining ex ante (before the beginning of the
>>>>>production process), while labour productivity is determined by the
>>>>>capitalists' power ex post (i.e. in the labour process).
>>>>>
>>>>>2) The paradox of "class demarcation". Now I have no time to present you
>>>>>this second problem. Let me reserve it for another message.
>>>>>
>>>>>Comradely
>>>>>
>>>>>Ernesto
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Ernesto Screpanti
>>>>>Dipartimento di Economia Politica
>>>>>Piazza S. Francesco 1
>>>>>53100 Siena
>>>>>tel: 0577 232784
>>>>>fax: 0577 232661
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Dr. Steve Keen
>>>>Senior Lecturer
>>>>Economics & Finance
>>>>University of Western Sydney Macarthur
>>>>Building 11 Room 30,
>>>>Goldsmith Avenue, Campbelltown
>>>>PO Box 555 Campbelltown NSW 2560
>>>>Australia
>>>>s.keen@uws.edu.au 61 2 4620-3016 Fax 61 2 4626-6683
>>>>Home 02 9558-8018 Mobile 0409 716 088
>>>>Home Page: http://bus.macarthur.uws.edu.au/steve-keen/
>>>>Workshop on Economic Dynamcs: http://bus.macarthur.uws.edu.au/WED
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Dr. Steve Keen
>>Senior Lecturer
>>Economics & Finance
>>University of Western Sydney Macarthur
>>Building 11 Room 30,
>>Goldsmith Avenue, Campbelltown
>>PO Box 555 Campbelltown NSW 2560
>>Australia
>>s.keen@uws.edu.au 61 2 4620-3016 Fax 61 2 4626-6683
>>Home 02 9558-8018 Mobile 0409 716 088
>>Home Page: http://bus.macarthur.uws.edu.au/steve-keen/
>>Workshop on Economic Dynamcs: http://bus.macarthur.uws.edu.au/WED
>
>
>P. S. Please note that I have a new Email address,
><cjarthur@waitrose.com>
>but the old one will also run until the summer. (To be doubly sure load
both!)
>
>
Dr. Steve Keen
Senior Lecturer
Economics & Finance
University of Western Sydney Macarthur
Building 11 Room 30,
Goldsmith Avenue, Campbelltown
PO Box 555 Campbelltown NSW 2560
Australia
s.keen@uws.edu.au 61 2 4620-3016 Fax 61 2 4626-6683
Home 02 9558-8018 Mobile 0409 716 088
Home Page: http://bus.macarthur.uws.edu.au/steve-keen/
Workshop on Economic Dynamcs: http://bus.macarthur.uws.edu.au/WED
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 21 2000 - 09:47:47 EDT