From: Francisco Paulo Cipolla (cipolla@sociais.ufpr.br)
Date: Wed Dec 04 2002 - 08:49:57 EST
Fred wrote:
I argue that Marx took the wage-bill (i.e. variable capital) as given, and
then assumed that the quantity of value added (VA) produced is determined
by the product of the quantity of socially necessary labor-time (L) and
money-value produced per hour (m); i.e.
VA = m L
>From this basic assumption, the quantity of surplus-value is explained, as
follows:
S = VA - V V is variable capital
= mL - V
= m (L - Ln) where Ln = V / m
This theory explains why value added is greater than variable capital -
because in only takes workers a part of the working day to produce
value-added equal to variable capital. But without the assumption that VA
= mL, there would be no explanation.
Hi Fred and colleagues of OPE-L,
It is not clear to me why your algebra allows you to conclude that "this
explains why value added is greater than variable capital". It explains rather
why a condition for the existence of surplus value is VA>V, or saying the same
differently: a condition for surplus value is that L be greater than Ln. But
none of this algebra explains why in fact it is. This difference between L and
Ln seems to me to be a result of history. It was true in feudalism already!
Capitalism increases the distance between L and Ln. Maybe it was just a matte
of expression. Could you clarify further? I thank you in advance.
Paulo
"Fred B. Moseley" wrote:
> This is a couple of brief replies to Nicky's (8058) which unfortunately I
> deleted by mistake. (Hi, Nicky)
>
> Nicky said:
>
> "... all that matters (to the production of surplus-value) is that the
> wage-bill ... does not exhaust value added. Magnitude is therefore not
> terribly interesting."
>
> My reply:
>
> Nicky, how could one explain why "the wage bill does not exhaust value
> added" unless one has a quantitative theory of value added? Value added
> and the wage bill are both quantities, and the difference between them -
> surplus-value - is also a quantity. Therefore, the explanation of why
> value added is greater than the wage-bill requires a quantitative theory
> of value added.
>
> I argue that Marx took the wage-bill (i.e. variable capital) as given, and
> then assumed that the quantity of value added (VA) produced is determined
> by the product of the quantity of socially necessary labor-time (L) and
> money-value produced per hour (m); i.e.
>
> VA = m L
>
> >From this basic assumption, the quantity of surplus-value is explained, as
> follows:
>
> S = VA - V V is variable capital
>
> = mL - V
>
> = m (L - Ln) where Ln = V / m
>
> This theory explains why value added is greater than variable capital -
> because in only takes workers a part of the working day to produce
> value-added equal to variable capital. But without the assumption that VA
> = mL, there would be no explanation.
>
> Nicky, how else could one explain why "the wage bill does not exhaust
> value added;" (i.e. why value added is greater than the wage-bill)
> except by providing an quantitative theory of value added?
>
> Nicky also said:
>
> Marx, imho, makes the mistake of developing form and content together and
> in the process gets stuck in a Ricardian muddle.
>
> My reply:
>
> I argue that Marx did not muddle form and content together. Rather, Marx
> clearly derived the form of value - money - as the necessary form of
> appearance of the content (or substance) of value - abstract labor. This
> is clear from the overall logic of Chapter 1 - abstract labor is derived
> in Section 1 as the substance of value and then money is derived in
> Section 3 as the necessary form of appearance of abstract labor.
>
> It is also clear from the following key methodological remarks in Section
> 1 of Chapter 1:
>
> "Let us now look at the residue of the products of labor. There is
> nothing left of them in each case but the same phantom-like
> objectivity; they are merely congealed quantities of homogeneous human
> labor ... As crystals of the SOCIAL SUBSTANCE, which is common to them
> all, they are values - commodity values.
>
> ... The common factor in the exchange relation, or in the exchange-value
> of the commodity, is therefore its value. The progress of our
> investigation will lead us back to exchange-value as the NECESSARY MODE OF
> EXPRESSION, OR FORM OF APPEARANCE, OF VALUE. For the present, however, we
> must consider the nature of value independently of its form of
> appearance." (C.I. 128; emphasis added)
>
> "Now we know the SUBSTANCE of value. It is LABOUR. We know the MEASURE
> OF ITS MAGNITUDE. It is LABOUR-TIME. The FORM, which stamps VALUE as
> EXCHANGE-VALUE, remains to be analyzed. But before this we need to
> develop the characteristics we have already found somewhat more
> fully." (C.I. 131; emphasis in the original)
>
> Comradely,
> Fred
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Dec 05 2002 - 00:00:00 EST