From: ajit sinha (sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM)
Date: Thu Nov 27 2003 - 02:24:24 EST
--- "michael a. lebowitz" <mlebowit@SFU.CA> wrote: > At 22:27 23/11/2003 -0800, ajit wrote: > > > from the > >begining I have been saying that your argument or > the > >problem is running in a circle. Once you say that > the > >real wage is determined by the class struggle or > the > >degree of separation of the workers, then you > cannot > >say that now I want to see how the real wages would > >behave when the degree of separation remains > constant > >and some other variable changes. Because if the > real > >wage was only the function of the degree of > separation > >of the workers then once it is held constant then > >there is no theoretical reason for it to change. > > Ajit, > I don't think I have ever said that the > real wage 'was ONLY a > function of the degree of separation of the > workers'. If I had, then of > course your point would be valid. But, if this were > my position, why would > I constantly be proposing that if productivity rises > (and thus the values > of wage goods falls), then IF the degree of > separation of workers is > constant, real wages will rise? The argument is > basically summed up on pp. > 216 as follows: > > U= Bq/X, where U, B, q and X are the real wage(U), a > constant (B), > productivity(q) and the degree of separation of > workers (X). > > The condition for a constant real wage, > then, is that the degree > of separation rises at the same rate as > productivity. _____________________ But isn't this the point I have been labouring for so long and have been reapeting all along? For you, real wages are a direct function of productivity (q). My point has been that for Marx the real wages are not a function of productivity. So the problem you are posing to Marx is not Marx's problem. To say that given U = Bq/X, U will be constant only if q/X must remain constant, given B being constant, is elementary mathematics. What insight one can get from such elementary mathematics? So, to repeat, the problem with what you are saying is that for your theory a rise in labor productivity, leaving other variables constant, must lead to a rise in real wages. This is not in Marx. Secondly, it is not clear how do you calculate X, if your X is Marx's S/V, then you have a circularity problem. Because in Marx's theory S/V is a function of your U, and not the other way around as you are implying. Unfortunately, since your book is already out, I don't know what good my arguments are for now? Cheers, ajit sinha p.s. I personally think that labor productivity has direct impact on wages. But I cannot incert this in Marx's theory and create a problem for him. AS ______________________ The condition for ANY > relative surplus value is that the degree of > separation (which impacts the > money wage inversely) rise. While one can make a > case for relative surplus > value where there is substitution of machinery for > workers, I would suggest > it is rather difficult to do so if productivity > rises drop from the sky > (ie., are not accompanied by the rise in the > technical composition); in > short, an essential premise for relative surplus > value is obscured by the > ASSUMPTION of a given real wage. You can see the > argument in the book. > Also, I just discovered with joy that Vol. 34 of > MECW is on-line at > marxists.org (one less book to carry with me as I > travel about!), so you > can see Marx's points on pp. 65-6. > I hope I've clarified my argument now, and > that my argument no > longer looks circular. > cheers, > michael > > > > > Thus > >when you say that you want to see how the real > wages > >would change when some other variable, in this case > >labor productivity, changes, you are in effect > saying > >that the real wages are determined by two factors > (1) > >the degree of separation of the workers, and the > other > >variable, in this case the productivity of the > labor. > >Now given this, when you read out the changes in > the > >real wage due to changes in the productivity of > labor, > >given the separation of workers constant, you are > in > >effect drawing a relationship between the real > wages > >and the labor productivity. So your theory simply > says > >that labor productivity has positive impact on real > >wages, it is not drawing any implication of what > >happens if the degree of separation remains > constant, > >it is not throwing any light on the question of > degree > >of separation of the workers and its relation to > real > >wages. > > > >Now let me try to make a case for you: I think you > >need to argue that labor productivity affects > degree > >of separation, and for your kind of hypothesis, > >positively. So when labor productivity rises, the > >degree of separation increases, which in turn > raises > >the real wage. In this case your degree of > separation > >is not given by the rate of surplus value. So you > have > >a job cut our for you. First of all you will have > to > >develop some way of measuring or quantifying the > >degree of separation of workers (s/v will not do, > can > >only create circularity in your argument). Then you > >will have to develop a theory that shows how labor > >productivity affects the degree of separation, and > >then develop a theory of real wages that shows how > >real wages are determined by degree of separation. > So > >the dominant causality runs from labor productivity > to > >degree of separation to real wages. I hope this is > of > >some help. Cheers, ajit sinha > > > --------------------- > > > 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/ > > --------------------- > 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 28 2003 - 00:00:01 EST