From: Cyrus Bina (binac@MRS.UMN.EDU)
Date: Fri Jan 30 2004 - 13:55:09 EST
Dear Jerry,
You wrote:
"Undivided LABOR' does not produce surplus value. The totality of
labor is not exploited. In so far as surplus value is concerned, labor
is
divided between productive and unproductive labor and in this sense
only a portion of the wage-labor force is exploited by capital. So I
think
there is something wrong with the symmetry you are asserting."
An adequate examination of above passage needs a significant amount of
time.
It needs a review of entire literature, for instance, on 'productive and
unproductive labor.' It needs, among others, revisiting Marx's methodology
and, in the view of recent debates, the meaning of value formation. But,
alas, I have no time, at this juncture, to deal with them; as I have to
depart
for more talks and to meet the deadlines of the projects that are fast
approaching.
However, to set the record straight, my telegraphic response is as
follows:
(1) By dividing labor in 'productive' and 'unproductive' CATEGORIES, Marx
attempts to identify SV in its source. Therefore, such a division has
nothing to do with the contribution of 'unproductive' labor, from the
standpoint of 'use value.' Indeed, this latter category is the part and
parcel of capitalist production proper. Unproductive labor is
'unproductive' only from the standpoint of capital. And, more importantly,
this 'unproductive ' labor is necessarily the by-product of exploitation.
(2) The Rate of Surplus Value is suppose to convey and/or to measure
something. If this something is EXPLOITATION, then we are dealing with an
'organic' concept that its primary focus is the CAPITAL-LABOR relation. I
used the term, 'undivided', in this sense.
(3) Even if the points above (1 and 2) are rejected, my theory of oil rent
and the question of differential productivity (differential amount of
surplus value) due to be extracted by Oil (rentier) states will stand on its
own. It is indeed unproductive and unfair to change the focus from the
specific question of appropriation of surplus profits in terms of
differential oil rents in the oil industry. For me, though, production (and
appropriation) of surplus is one thing, and the interpretation of the rate
of exploitation is another value. If one does not accept the first and
second points above, one still can realize that in the oil sector there are
workers who produce more surplus value than others, given the differential
productivity of the oil region in which they are working. Therefore,
whether there is "something wrong with the symmetry [I am] asserting or not
has nothing to do with the formation of differential oil rent across the
globe.
Thanks for your patient,
Cyrus
----- Original Message -----
From: "gerald_a_levy" <gerald_a_levy@msn.com>
To: <OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU>
Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2004 7:00 PM
Subject: (OPE-L) s/v & c/v: macroeconomic categories only?
> Hello Cyrus:
>
> > But, the
> > RATE OF SURPLUS VALUE is a macro concept that reflects the totality of
> > SOCIAL CAPITAL as a whole. In other words, the concept of EXPLOITATION
is
> > not a partial concept; it is rather an organic category belonging to
> > undivided LABOR and, by the same token, to undivided CAPITAL).
>
> "Undivided LABOR" does not produce surplus value. The totality of
> labor is not exploited. In so far as surplus value is concerned, labor is
> divided between productive and unproductive labor and in this sense
> only a portion of the wage-labor force is exploited by capital. So I think
> there is something wrong with the symmetry you are asserting.
>
> In solidarity, Jerry
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Feb 02 2004 - 00:00:02 EST