re 5247 >Hi Rakesh. > >You remind us of some good points Marx made about Ricardo's world >view, but I was talking more narrowly about the concept of the >"use-value" of a machine. > >Duncan Dear Duncan, Marx's dynamics centers on the contradictory use value of the machine (and you would surely put the point much better than I do here). On the one hand, the machine is useful to the capitalist because it allows him to reduce unit values by substituting a lesser sum of indirect labor for a greater sum of paid direct labor on a per unit basis (of course if capitalists had to pay for the total labor performed, instead of simply labor power, the use value of the machine would even have a greater scope). On the other hand, the machine is useful in that it allows for the absorption of surplus labor or production of newly added value. However, the less direct labor employed relative to total capital--that is, the more unit values are reduced--the more difficult it becomes for the capitalist to absorb surplus labor. However, Marx does not only consider the use of machines from the perspective of value or net revenue. On the one hand, Marx emphasizes the use of machines on gross revenue, i.e., in terms of the use values available for working class consumption. On the other hand, Marx emphasizes that even from the narrow perspective of valorization or absorption of surplus labor, what matters is not only the value of machinery but its quantity in use value terms. So as I said in my last post with an expanded mass of the elements of production, even if their value is the same, more workers can be introduced into the productive process and in the next cycle of production these workers will be producing more value. That is, it does seem to me that qualitative improvements in the machine producing sector are quite important for Marx. This is where I seem to be disagreeing with you. That is, use value (in the sense of the quantity of machines as use values) plays a different role in Marx's theory than in political economy and Ricardo's theory in particular. It seems to me that the question we are trying to answer is why Marx emphasized in his notes on A Wagner that use value is not only not ignored in his theory, it plays a novel role. Sweezy's denial of the importance of use value is one approach; Steve's answer is another . Grossman's interpretation of Marx is yet another. It's strange to me that Steve would laud several people but Grossman for emphasizing the centrality of use value to Marx though Rosdolsky whom Steve praises to the sky is only summarizing Grossman's argument. I am hoping that Steve is not ignoring Grossman because I have associated myself with him. Yours, Rakesh > >>re 5231 >> >>> So they try to find measures of the "qualitative improvement" of >>>capital. (The new machine, which costs the same as the old one, >>>can shape twice as many pieces of metal or execute twice as many >>>instructions.) This is completely foreign to the Marxian/Classical >>>(and even /Sraffian) way of looking at capital, and, as far as I >>>can tell, just adds confusing noise to the macroeconomic data. If, >>>as Marx argues, the use-value of a machine to the capitalist is >>>the amount of wage cost it saves, changes in the concrete >>>performance of the machine are irrelevant. >>> >>>Duncan >> >>Hi Duncan, >>It seems to me that Marx is not so exclusively interested in the >>value surplus at the expense of use value. For example, Marx >>criticizes Ricardo for only being concerned with net revenue (pure >>profit), the value surplus of price over costs, and not gross >>revenue, i.e., the mass of use values necessary for the subsistence >>of the working population. Marx criticizes Ricardo precisely for >>only figuring these use values as costs which are to be pushed down >>as low as possible. So for an employer who makes $2000 profit on a >>capital of >>$20,000--10%--it is utterly irrelevant whether his capital sets 100 >>or 1000 people into motion...as long as in all instances profit >>does not fall below $2,000. Since as you say above anything other >>than this value surplus is, as you say above, noise to the >>macroeconomic data, Marx writes: "By denying the importance of >>gross revenue, i.e, the volume of production and consumption--apart >>from the value surplus--and hence denying the importance of life >>itself, political economy's abstraction reaches the peak of infamy." >> >>Moreover, as I suggested in my last post, the expansion in the mass >>of use values in which a given sum of value is represented is >>indeed of great INDIRECT significance for the valorization process. >>For example, >> >>There is indeed for Marx a dialectic of use value and value in more >>than just the consumption of labor power. Steve credits Rosdolsky >>for rescuing this key element of Marx's theory. But if Steve were >>to study the footnotes of Rosdolsky, he will find that he is >>drawing from Grossmann's work. In both HG's magnum opus and >>dynamics book there is attention to said dialectic. >> >>Yours, Rakesh > >-- >Duncan K. Foley >Leo Model Professor >Department of Economics >Graduate Faculty >New School University >65 Fifth Avenue >New York, NY 10003 >(212)-229-5906 >messages: (212)-229-5717 >fax: (212)-229-5724 >e-mail: foleyd@cepa.newschool.edu >alternate: foleyd@newschool.edu >alternate: dkf@ultinet.net >webpage: http://cepa.newschool.edu/~foleyd
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Apr 02 2001 - 09:57:30 EDT