>Dear Rakesh, > >please read my posts more carefully. > >I was quoting Arun Bose in the section you highlighted. Yes, Steve, I understand that I am expressing a criticism of Bose's conclusion with which you are expressing assent (and I'll look for Bose's book in the library). But the question remains: have you and Bose confused the possibility of an indirect effect on surplus value from the use value of a machine with the thesis that the use value of a machine (that is dead labor) is itself directly productive of new value? I'll reattach my original post since you did not respond to it. >> >>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