[OPE-L:8135] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: philosophy and politicaleconomy

From: Francisco Paulo Cipolla (cipolla@sociais.ufpr.br)
Date: Fri Dec 06 2002 - 12:16:00 EST


Dear Fred,
I may be wrong but what I am arguing is that a "condition for" cannot be identified as a
"reason for"...It is something similar to the joke Marx makes at a certain point in
Capital: the condition for digestion is a good stomach. Actual digestion, on the other
hand, needs something more..."  That is, the condition for the existence of surplus
value cannot be identified with an explanation for why it exists. The actual difference
between L and Ln in capitalism is a product of the history of human productivity, human
working day and wages. The convergence of these three elements is what makes sure that
the condition for the existence of surplus value actually takes place.
Do you agree with this?
Paulo


"Fred B. Moseley" wrote:

> Paulo, I don't understand why this is not an explanation of surplus-value.
> A difference in money quantities - dM or surplus-value - is explained by a
> difference in labor-time quantities - (L-Ln) or surplus labor.
> Why is this not an explanation of surplus-value?
>
> Why there is a difference between L and Ln is a further question, to which
> Marx's theory provides a substantial, but not exhaustive answer.  But it
> still explains why money value added in greater than the money wages paid
> - because L is greater than Ln, not because of the marginal productivity
> of capital, etc.
>
> Comradely,
> Fred
>
> On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, Francisco Paulo Cipolla wrote:
>
> >
> > 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 : Sun Dec 08 2002 - 00:00:01 EST