Re Allin's [5563] and Paul C's [5561]: Previously I asked: > "Suppose that output/working hour increases in > that part of Department II that produces > commodities that are solely consumed by > capitalists while output/working hour remains > constant in Dept I and the rest of Dept II. Is > that an example of relative surplus value where > the labor content of the workers' means of > subsistence can remain unchanged?" Allin replied: > It's not an example of relative surplus value. > An increase in productivity of labour in > Department III (that's what you mean?) [it's a division of Dept II: IIb. I guess we could call it Dept III if we want -- although some might object. I'm not exactly clear what some think is riding on whether we call it Dept IIb or Dept. III. Any takers? When (or is?) a Dept III useful in helping to clarify the issues in terms of production departments?] > gives the capitalists a larger volume of use > values to enjoy with their profits, but it doesn't > augment surplus value. Yes, it gives the capitalist a greater volume of use values that they can enjoy for consumption purposes. But, it is not use-value alone. Rather, luxury goods take the commodity form and have value which is expressed through the value-form. This increase in the productivity of labor (as measured by an increase in output per working hour) in Dept IIb (call it Dept III if you like) means that the necessary labor time for productive workers in this (sub-) department has decreased and surplus labor time has increased. Are you asserting that the workers employed by capital in this (sub-) department aren't productive of surplus value? (this reminds me of our recent discussion on armaments and Paul C's unconventional and largely unanswered take on that question.) [btw, the question re whether the above example constitutes an increase in relative surplus value also relates to the recent thread on whether increases in the intensity of labor should be understood as a form of increasing relative surplus value.] So, I would say (contra Paul C's claim in 5561) that the effect of the above is that the mass of surplus value *has* increased. What effect this will have on the accumulation of capital is another question. Clearly, if capitalists are individually consuming a larger proportion of the total surplus value then that will mean that the quantity of surplus value that is available for productive investment in c + v will be less than it otherwise would have been. Yet, if the demand for luxury goods goes up, then Dept IIb capitalists can be expected to increase luxury good production and thereby their demand for labor power and means of production has increased. So, it would seem that rather than there being a decrease in productive investment in this case, there is only a shift in terms of the composition and quantity of commodities being produced. Note that in this case, there is no reason to expect that the labor content of the workers' means of subsistence will change. Rather, there has been a change in the labor content of the capitalists' 'means of subsistence'. In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Jun 02 2001 - 00:00:07 EDT