Hi Paulo, Perhaps your students did not consciously reason as I am doing, but I think their logic was inherently close to the mark. When you say that "we could not subtract value from use value the same way we cannot subtract the value of a pen from its use value as a means to write", your logic crosses from the M--C--M+ circuit back over to the C--M--C circuit. In the M--C--M+ circuit, all use-values are inherently quantitative to the relevant consumer--which is the capitalist. In a pen is part of a production process, then its qualitative use-value is a necessity, but peripheral to the use-value which matters to its capitalist consumer--its ability to help generate surplus value. So I think you may indeed have been giving lower marks than justified! Cheers, Steve At 10:43 AM 3/22/01 -0300, you wrote: >I've been teaching political economy for a decade now and a question i >have consitently asked in my exams was: Use the concepts of value of labor >power and use value of labor power in order to derive surplus value. >Interestingly enough and against my explicit emphasis the students >insisted in just subtracting the value of labor power from the use value >of labor power. I went out of my way to explain to them that we had first >to convert the use value of labor power into a quantitative dimension >before we could subtract the value of labor power. I repeated over and >over again that we could not subtract value from use value the same way we >cannot subtract the value of a pen from its use value as a means to write. >The conversion of the use value of labor power into a quantitative >dimension is its actual use for a specific period of time. Outside its >actual use we cannot obtain its quantitative dimension. That's also the >reason why capitalists are so zealous in making sure this quantitative >dimension is put to good use. Was I giving lower grades than due for this >past decade? >Paulo Cipolla > >Steve Keen wrote: >> Hi Jerry, >> >>I use the old Progress Press edition. >> >>This quote is the point at which Marx first reveals the source of >>surplus-value in Capital I. >> >>Cheers, >>Steve >>At 09:38 AM 3/20/01 -0500, you wrote: >>>It is unclear to me in what edition of Volume 1 of >>>*Capital* on 'p. 188' Steve K cited below in [5189]. >>>However, for reference, it is from Ch. 7, Section 2 >>>in a paragraph that begins "Let us examine the >>>matter more closely." In the Kerr edition, this >>>paragraph is on pp. 215-216. In the International >>>(1939) edition, see pp. 174-175. In the Penguin ed., >>>see pp. 300-301. An interesting difference in >>>translation concerns "the value which that labor- >>>power creates in the labor process" (Kerr) vs. >>>"the value that labour-power valorizes [*verwertet*] >>>in the labour-process" (Penguin). Note that in all >>>cases the VLP and the "value that ...." concern >>>value as such, not uv. >>> >>>In solidarity, Jerry >>>The past labor that is embodied in the labor power, and the >>>living labor 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 labor power, the latter is its use-value.* >>>The fact that half a [working] day's labor is necessary to keep >>>the laborer alive during 24 hours, does not in any way prevent >>>him from working a whole day. Therefore, the value of labor >>>power, and the value which that labor power creates in the labor >>>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 labor 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 labor power, and in this transaction he >>>acts in accordance with the 'eternal laws' of the exchange of >>>commodities. *The seller of labor power, like the seller of any >>>other commodity, realizes its exchange-value, and parts with its >>>use-value.* (capital I, p. 188.) >>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/ > >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