From: Francisco Paulo Cipolla (cipolla@sociais.ufpr.br)
Date: Thu Dec 05 2002 - 15:21:21 EST
You seem to agree that we cannot say that (L-Ln)m explains why value added is greater than (Ln)m. It simply says that for there to be surplus value (L-Ln)m>0. Paulo "Fred B. Moseley" wrote: > On Wed, 4 Dec 2002, Francisco Paulo Cipolla wrote: > > > 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 > > > > Hi Paolo, thanks for your questions. My brief responses are: > > 1. This equation (or rather Marx's theory which the equation > summarizes) identifies the determinants of surplus-value: L and Ln, which > are quantities of labor-time that exist as separate entities from > quantities of money - even though necessarily connected with quantities of > money, with the precise relation between them expressed by this > equation. I agree that one also had to go further and explain the > determination of L and Ln, which Marx's theory also does (see #4 below). > > 2. This equation also explains more than the "condition of existence" of > surplus-value. It also explains the precise magnitude of surplus-value, > which is proportional to surplus labor, with m as the factor of > proportionality. > > 3. I also agree (of course) that surplus labor already existed in > feudalism. But the unique thing about capitalism is that surplus labor > APPEARS TO DISAPPEAR! Because capitalist pay wages to workers, the > relation between capitalists appears to be one of an equal exchange, with > no surplus labor involved. Mainstream economic theory explains profit (or > at least tries to, and fails) by factors other than surplus labor - the > marginal productivity of capital, abstinence (!), risk, etc. The main > achievement of Marx's theory (in my view) is that it destroys the illusion > of an equal exchange between capitalists and workers and clearly > demonstrates that surplus-value is the result of surplus labor, i.e. of > the exploitation of workers. > > 4. Capitalism does indeed "increase the distance between L and Ln." Much > more so than other mode of production. From this inherent tendency to > increase surplus labor, Marx's theory derived in Volume 1 the following > important further conclusions: (1) inherent conflict over the length of > the working day; (2) inherent conflict over the intensity of labor, and > (3) inherent technological change. This impressive explanatory power is > unmatched by any other theory of profit. > > Paolo (and others), any further comments? Thanks again. > > Comradely, > Fred
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Dec 06 2002 - 00:00:00 EST