From: clyder@gn.apc.org
Date: Wed Dec 11 2002 - 05:46:58 EST
Quoting "Fred B. Moseley" <fmoseley@mtholyoke.edu>: > > > > 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) > I was not disputing that there is an explanation, I just think you had misunderstood what people were asking you about.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Dec 12 2002 - 00:00:01 EST