From: ajit sinha (sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM)
Date: Thu Nov 20 2003 - 02:10:22 EST
--- "michael a. lebowitz" <mlebowit@SFU.CA> wrote: > Rakesh wrote: > > > > >> Confused here. I thought you were chiding > > > Michael L > > > >> for not having > > > >> a causal theory but then you seem to suggest > > > that > > > >> attribution of > > > >> causes is superstitious? > > > >_________________ > > And Ajit responded: > > > > > > > > >How can I chid Michael L! What I was humbly > > > pointing > > > >out was that he is developing a causal > explanation, > > > >but his explanation turns out to be circular--a > no! > > > >no! for any causal theory. > > Now, I'm confused. I simply posed the proposition--- > let us assume the rate > of exploitation given (as Marx assumed in Vol3, Ch. > 13 and as he discussed > in the 1861-63 Economic Manuscript) and I suggested > that we justify this by > assuming that the balance of class forces is given > at a given point of > time. (In my chapter, 'Wages', I introduce the > degree of separation among > workers as a variable and assume that given at a > given point of time.) > Then, I asked, what are the implications of rising > productivity (and what > happens to the theory of relative surplus value when > we no longer assume > the real wage given)? Methodologically, how is this > any different from what > Ajit is doing? Ajit accepts that the real wage is > determined by class > struggle; he presumably also agrees that the workday > is set as a result of > class struggle. In this, he would be simply > accepting that capitalist and > worker push in opposite directions on these fronts > and that the respective > power of the combatants (ie., the balance of class > forces) sets both. Ajit > (following Marx's provisional assumption) then > assumes the real wage given > for a given country at a given time and then would > consider the effect of > rising productivity on the rate of exploitation. How > is one argument > circular and the other not? __________________________ Let's first of all clarify that what are there in Marx's theory and what other possibilities one can think of are two separate things. Taking the first issue first, what you are proposing is not there in Marx's theory. In his three chapters on falling rate of profits: the first chapter abstracts from the question of a rise in productivity due to a change in technology. Therefore, what he looks at is the impact of a rise in C/v, given s/v. As he states: "We entirely leave aside here the fact that the same amount of value represents a progressively rising mass of use-value and satisfactions, with the progress of capitalist production and with the corresponding development of the productivity of social labour and multiplication of branches of production and hence products." In the second and third chapters he introduces the question of increase in labor productivity due to technical change. His main argument is that the nature of technical changes is such that it creates increase in relative unemployment, which depresses real wages in the long run. Therefore, this aspect is treated as countervailing tendency to the fall in the rate of profits. Only at one place he suggests that if there is overproduction of capital, i.e., the demand for labor due to accumulation is rising faster than the rate of growth of population then the real wages might increase for a time being but soon the rise in wages will bring about increase in the rate of growth of population due to fall in infant mortality and rise in early marriages etc. and bring the real wages down. Thus the idea that Marx keeps s/v constant in the falling rate of profit thesis must imply that he must have somehow assumed that real wages would rise with the rise in productivity is not tenable. Secondly, Marx is consistent throughout on the question of what determines real wages and what causes determine its long-term trends. Now to your repeated question: why cannot we keep s/v constant and read out the impact of a rise in productivity on w? The answer to this question is that s/v is a number. It is a derived number from given w, length of the working day, and the level of productivity. It has no independent existence from these three variables. Even if we assume that your proposition that real w and the length of the working day are determined by the relative strengths of the two classes is true, what you are doing is not warranted. As you have already used this relative strength to determine w, so how can now a change in productivity change the w when the relative strength of the two classes have remained the same? I think your mistake is similar to the mistake of trying to determine two unknowns with one equation. I hope my point is clearer this time. Cheers, ajit sinha ____________________________ > More significant, though, are the > unanswered questions--- what is > the logic behind assuming the real wage constant, > what are the conditions > necessary for this assumption to hold and what is > its implication? > in solidarity, > michael > > --------------------- > Michael A. Lebowitz > Professor Emeritus > Economics Department > Simon Fraser University > Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6 > Office Fax: (604) 291-5944 > Home: Phone (604) 689-9510 __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now http://companion.yahoo.com/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 21 2003 - 00:00:00 EST