Dear Rakesh, please read my posts more carefully. I was quoting Arun Bose in the section you highlighted. Why not read his book and see what he had to say? Steve At 04:46 PM 3/21/01 -0800, you wrote: >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 > > > > > > > > > Dr. Steve Keen Senior Lecturer Economics & Finance Campbelltown, Building 11 Room 30, School of Economics and Finance UNIVERSITY WESTERN SYDNEY LOCKED BAG 1797 PENRITH SOUTH DC NSW 1797 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.uws.edu.au/steve-keen/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Apr 02 2001 - 09:57:29 EDT