re Gary's 7383 > >The magnitude of the surplus depends on the technical conditions of production >and the real wages of workers. True, the matrices don't determine these >things, and no Sraffian ever claimed that they do. On the contrary, the >Sraffian position is quite explicitly that to understand capitalism we must >investigate the processes by which production methods and distribution are >regulated. This of course must include an appreciation of the central role of >class conflict. But it is not clear to me that one need bring in labor values >to understand these processes. Gary,as I understand it, the Sraffian takes as given the magnitude of the surplus in use value terms. No you know taking this as given will be challenged. And even Ajit underlines the problem here. Marx after all criticized Ricardo for forgetting that though the technical means for surplus labor may exist, that does not make surplus labor exist in reality. "For this to occur, the labourer must be compelled to work in excess of [necessary] time, and this compulsion exerted by capital. This is missing in Ricardo's [and Sraffa's work!!!rb] and therefore the whole struggle over the regulation of the normal working day." TSVII, p. 406 I think this quote has been unduly ignored. The technical conditions (or a blueprint thereof) do not themselves yield a surplus--only the possibility thereof; for that to occur there must be unpaid alienated living labor time and labor values have to be brought in to understand the real process, as Shaikh puts it. > >> >>By focusing on value as a process rather than technical conditions as >>a given, one can keep focus on the objectification of alienated >>living labor in the commodity output which the simultaneous method >>simply takes as given. >> >>The neo Ricardian theory tells us that it is fine to focus on the >>alienation of labor in the production process and do studies thereof >>but that in the determination of the profit rate and relative prices >>there is nothing to be gained by understanding the surplus as nothing >>other than the materialization of unpaid living labor. >> > >I would add a qualifier here: there is nothing SCIENTIFIC to be gained by >understanding the surplus as nothing other than the materialization of unpaid >living labor. There are other kinds of insight besides scientific insight, >and I am open to the possibility that other ways of conceiving the surplus can >provide philosophical insight, in the sense of opening our eyes to important >and often-overlooked matters of consciousness and subjective experience. Of course my argument is that there are two scientific ways of understanding the surplus--one in physical quantity terms, the other in value terms. Both have economic significance--the former indirectly, the latter directly. > I >don't want to get into a discussion of what I mean by scientific, but since >it's the obvious next question, let me say I mean issues that can be discussed >in some significant degree independently of one's ideological stance. > > >>So proponents of the simultaneous method will argue that for the >>purposes of determining the rate of profit and relative prices the >>surplus value objectified by alienated labor in the commodity output >>plays no role. > >I wouldn't make that argument. I would say that "surplus value objectified by >alienated labor in the commodity output" plays a role insofar as it manifests >itself in the technical conditions of production and the living standard of >workers. Again I don't think the technical conditions do anything or cause anything. Comradely, Rakesh
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Jul 02 2002 - 00:00:05 EDT