re 5225 > >Perhaps I had better first apologise for my tone in the previous >email; I have I think even more experience (in discussions with >marxists) of being in the intellectual minority [I count Arun Bose >as the only other scholar who has explicitly argued "<I>Theorem >6<D>: In a capitalist economy with positive capital accumulation, >labour is not, <I>immediately<D> or <I>ultimately<D>, the <I>only<D> >or the <I>main<D> source of price, ***surplus produce***, or >profit." (Marx on exploitation and inequality, Delhi Uni Press 1980). (my emphasis) Steve, It seems to me that you are conflating use value and value, the determination of the physical quantities produced and the determination of the value of the produced output. Marx is not saying that the use value of labor power is the only source of surplus produce, defined as the physical quantity of goods over and above those needed for replacement of the goods consumed in production. The physical quantity of commodities produced is determined by the quality and quantity of the consumed means of production, the quantity and quality of the direct labor employed and the interaction of tools and direct labor (e.g., more will be produced if better tools are employed by more skilled labor). (1) Qmp + Qlp + (QmpxQlp) => Quv In the above we count means of production and labor power of greater quality simply as a greater quantity. Now no one is denying that the physical quantities produced are determined as much by the use value of the machine as the use value of labor power. Indeed in an advanced economy, it may make most sense to say that it is the interaction between machine and workers which best accounts for the quantities produced. However, no matter how great or little in quantity the use values produced, their value is determined as the sum of indirect and direct labor time. (2) Lmp + Lc => V Now of course if labor is more physically productive in use value terms due to use of a better machine, the rate of exploitation can be higher in value terms since (assuming a constant real wage) there will be a reduction in the variable capital which has to be advanced to allow workers to buy the wage goods which they need. (For the same reason, there could be a gain in surplus value from a reduction in the constant capital which has to be advanced to purchase the means of production needed to absorb surplus labor). So yes it can be said--and here perhaps I break with Michael W-- that the use value of the machine INDIRECTLY contributes to the determination of which portion of total value is surplus value no less than the use value of labor power directly determines the sum of surplus value produced. But I don't think this is what you are saying. Yours, Rakesh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Apr 02 2001 - 09:57:29 EDT