From: Fred B. Moseley (fmoseley@mtholyoke.edu)
Date: Tue Dec 10 2002 - 23:19:39 EST
On Mon, 9 Dec 2002 clyder@gn.apc.org wrote: > Quoting "Fred B. Moseley" <fmoseley@mtholyoke.edu>: > > > > > Hi Paulo, > > > > As I understand you, you argue that my equation summarizing Marx's theory > > of surplus-value > > > > S = m (L - Ln) > > > > does not explain why surplus-value exists, but is only a necessary > > condition for the existence of surplus-value. (is this correct?). Would > > you also say that L and Ln are not "causes" or "determinants" of the > > magnitude of surplus-value? > > > > I argue that this equation does provide an explanation of the DIRECT > > CAUSES of surplus-value - L and Ln (given m). A given change in L or Ln > > will CAUSE a change in surplus-value, by a determined amount, determined > > by the above equation. > > > The problem Fred is to explain why wages do not rise so high as to > consume all of the product. Hi Paul. Marx explained why wages do not rise so high as to eliminate profit in Section 1 of Chapter 25 of Volume 1 - because if wages rise high enough to start to threaten the existence of profit, then capital accumulation would slow down, unemployment would rise, and wages would fall. As Marx put it: "As soon as this diminution [of surplus-value] touches the point at which the surplus labor that nourishes capital is no longer supplied in normal quantity, a reaction sets in: a smaller part of revenue is capitalized, accumulation slows down, and the rising movement of wages comes up against an obstacle. The rise of wages is therefore confined within limits that not only leave intact the foundations of the capitalist system, but also secure its reproduction on an increasing scale." (C.I: 771) Comradely, Fred
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Dec 12 2002 - 00:00:01 EST