From: Riccardo Bellofiore (bellofio@cisi.unito.it)
Date: Sun Sep 01 2002 - 07:22:36 EDT
At 0:39 +0100 31-08-2002, Christopher Arthur wrote: >Ricardo I may kill you next time ... 8-) >This is interesting - you really think we form a 'school' of two?? What do >others think of thepara below? school is a big word. I mean that on this point I do not see others whos share exactly the same point, with the same centrality. but I hope I'm wrong, of course ... > >I query this point about wages. First it is necessary to distinguish >empirical matters and conceptual matters. >1) Empirically in no case whatever are wages advanced prior to labour (for >obvious reasons). So the only question is whether they are advanced prior >to sale of output. Here there are enormous variations, starting with a >comparison of wage perodicity and production period. the former With casual >labour may be a day but it may be a year when agricultural labourers were >paid out of the proceeds of the harvest; I beleive weekly is the norm. On >the latter Anyone who has ever employed a small building firm will be >familiar with demands to 'pay something on account' to keep the cash flow >in balance while the job is being done. > I seem to remember Geert claiming that today workers are generally paid >after the sale of the output; so this would destroy your position >completely empirically if it were true (which I doubt). Incidentally I very >much doubt bank loans are for wages empirically; I guess they are for >machinery. >But IMO the key issue is not empirical but conceptual. >2) I think it is very important at a volume 1 level not to have wages paid >in advance because this strongly suggests it is a value input to production >and should hence be transferred along with c. Absolutely central to Marx is >that labour produces its own wages as part of the added value, so >conceptually, when studying the 'constitution' of capital, both the wage >and the sv are ex post. But c counts as input regardless of credit >arrangements empirically. >Now assume this is understood and we have already constituted capital >circulating. Here the question of before or after becomes indeterminate in >the sense that expenditures and receipts happen continuously. But in >calculating its profit in its annual accounts wages come into cost price >regardless of when paid. >(BTW I raise the issue of whether 'variable capital' is correct terminology >given it is not v that varies since it does not appear as a constituent of >final value but only as a deduction from it. Any 'variation' is due to the >absorption of living labour which is not a value at all.) this is interesting, but I can't answer now, I'm leaving for some time. I'll come back, I ater I hope. I agree with 2, however, about wages in the value added. on the capitalist circuit, we defintely are NOT a shooll (so I'm reduced to a school of one: which means, more or less, I'm crazy). > >?? Abstract labour *is* immediately social disagree: it is a process, for me: it is in production 'latent', and though the SAME activity it is the opposite of concrete labour which is 'becoming' abstract labour in the full sense of the world, yes: with final abstraction completed in the phase of exchange, but still the abstract labour in the commodity it is not IMMEDIATELY money. money is *immediately* social. I cannot elaborate here, for the hurry, but I guess you may understand what I mean from Napoleoni 75, and some Rubin. >- that is the point of its >replacing concrete labour which is not - of course it requires money for it >to exist. that OF COURSE it's definitely not irrelevant in our disagreement. >If you mean abstract labur in production then to avoid Alfedo's criticicism >one still has to say this production socially determined production not >private. indeed, it is not strictly private, that's another point on which II change relative to Napoleoni, it is, so to speaked, something which has a preliminary, uncertain sociality (R&W pre-commensuration, plus ante-validation, on which de Brunhoff is useful). there is a paper in French of Bidet which also goes this way. >But I agree about competition. good! > >>so, as you see, from my interpretation, both initial and final >>moments of circulation are deeply affecting production. but this >>influences, which are powerful, are effective ONLY IN SO FAR the >>counterproductivity of labour is won. this, again, is the CENTRALITY >>of production, and of class struggle, in my (our?) approach. and this >>we have only in (our?) Marx. no other social scientist ventured >>there. and this is why I became a Marxian (if I may claim this label). >> >Yes. I think we pretty well agree. The problem is in the terminology. Every >Marxist says production is central. So what VF must stress is that the >terms are set by its being production for exchange which deeply penetrates >it e.g. for me it is impossible to explain from production as such why time >is of the essence (and why only certain time counts), it can only be done >from the capital form. well, about terminology I have to confess ... >The sense in which production is central is that the >material existence of the surplus depends upon winning the calss struggle >at th pointof production. I agree COMPLETELY with yours, and may I put forward that I always EXPLICITELY denied that from production AS SUCH cannot explain why time is of the essence (indeed, this caution has always been one of my KEY points, I don't know why somebody can guess otherwise; btw, one of the most contested thing of mine, the method of comparison, has here its birth). and I also would accept, line by line, this last sentence, indeed I thought I wrote it several times with the same terminology. so we here we are the same. > > >>(a) I say, relative to the beginning of Capital, that the referring >>of labour to value is not-convincing, and you say something similar. >>but, unlike you, I am ready to accept this reference as a >>preliminary, subjective argument to be posited elsewhere in Capital, >>vol I, in the further development of value form determinations. that >>is: you prefer not to speak of labour as some immaterial substance of >>'value' until you come into the immediate production process. >> >>this difference is not very relevant to me. I mean: can FULLY accept >>your argument without changing almost nothing in my approach. I >>simply (as in other places) I try to reconstruct Marx's argument with >>the least changes as possible (and, as you know, this notwithsanding, >>I have to change a lot!). >> >>this is for me is an instance of the positing of the presupposition. >>BUT when what was presupposed is eventually posited, we see a BIG >>change. the 'hypothesis' of labour value in the first chapter of >>Capital was FORCED to refer to 'naturalistic', 'energetic', >>'physicalist' elements, giving some ground to Ricardian readings of >>Marx (Geert is at his best here). when the presupposition is posited, >>this qui pro qui disappears. completely. >> >Yes OK but we do not *have* to presuppose it may you expand? > >>(b) another instance of positing the presupposition is relative to >>money. money as equivalent is deduced at the beginning of Capital >>>from general commodity exchange, in the stage of the argument when >>the concept of capital has not been developed. when this develepment >>happens, as you know, I think that the element of finance becomes >>more and more central, and that this finance dispels the impression >>that the general equivalent must be money as a commodity. so, I have >>labour theory of value without money commodity. >> >OK but I think ch 1 is a necessary stage in the derivation of M as form >regardless of LTV. I think I may agree here, that is that though Marx did that (interpretation) it is not necessary (reconstruction). > >Sure - dialectics sees only the completed form grounds the simpler (whether >logically or historically). >So if we could argue the separation was necessary to the concept of capital >in general (not just a convenience e.g. for centralising hoards) then we >could agree. It seems to me that expositionally we first study competition >in commodity markets for sales, and then study 'competition for capital' >when each industrialist tries to raise funds.'Competition for capital' >closes the concept that began with competition between capitals. I think >Sekine said this about 'capital as a commodity'. yes, I would like to move this way, but here I have not completely settled opinions. I'm ashamed. I have Sekine, but I've not yet read it. riccardo -- Riccardo Bellofiore Dipartimento di Scienze Economiche Via dei Caniana 2 I-24127 Bergamo, Italy e-mail: bellofio@unibg.it, bellofio@cisi.unito.it direct +39-035-2052545 secretary +39-035 2052501 fax: +39 035 2052549 homepage: http://www.unibg.it/dse/homebellofiore.htm
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Sep 06 2002 - 10:13:05 EDT