From: ajit sinha (sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM)
Date: Wed Sep 15 2004 - 07:50:17 EDT
--- Ian Hunt <Ian.Hunt@FLINDERS.EDU.AU> wrote: > Ajit, [snip]... > You claim that "wages" could not exist as data for > workers in a scp. > In scp, there will be no "wages" but there will be > returns or income > per hour of labour. It is not clear at all to me why > workers would > not know what returns per hour generally were. Nor > is it clear that a > person contemplating a business for the first time > would be unable to > know whether income per hour in making steel is due > to skills, > scarcity of iron ore or high pay per hour. Surely > everyone would know > whether you needed to spend long hours learning how > to make iron or > require special natural aptitude - this could hardly > be a trade > secret since people do not last forever and > successor workers have to > be trained. Scarcity of raw materials would also be > easy to > determine: you would note expanding production, due > largely no doubt > to increased number of recruits taking advantage of > the prospects. ___________________ Ian, I think even today in capitalist economies even income tax departments find it very hard to assess the correct incomes of small businesses. How do you expect individual workers to get this information so easily? As a matter of fact, I would expect to find strong family traditions in various lines of production in a scp society. And one of the major reasons for this would be absence of wages as public data. I think I have taken care of your first point in my response to Paul C. Cheers, ajit sinha [snip] > > >On this topic, my long foot note 16 of 'The Concept > of > >Value in Marx: A Reinterpretation', Research In > >Political Economy, vol.12, 1990 may be of some > >relevance: > >"As we have seen, it is almost universally accepted > in > >Marxist literature that value is not only derivable > >from simple commodity production but is free of all > >apparent contradictions (the transformation problem > >does not arise in this case); in the simple > commodity > >production framework, it is understood, , value > >appears in its purest form. However, if my > >interpretation of abstract labor is correct, then > it > >implies that the concept of VALUE cannot be applied > to > >a mode of production called 'simple commodity > >production'! > > > >Simple commodity production is characterized by > social > >division of labor and 'private' appropreation of > the > >product by the producers. However, in this mode of > >production, the laborer owns his/her means of > >production, i.e., there is no capital-wage labor > >social relation. Let us take an input-output > scheme, > >which is characterized as: > > > >a(11)x(1) + a(12)x(2) + l(i) --> 1x(1); a(11) < 1 > >a(21)x(1) + a(22)x(2) + l(c) --> 1x(2); a(22) < 1 > > > >where: a(ij) represents the amount of good j > consumed > >in the production of one unit of good i; x(1) and > x(2) > >represent the capital good (iron) and consumer good > >(corn) respectively; and l(i) and l(c) represent > one > >unit of labor of iron and corn producers > respectively. > > > >If the remunerations the producers in the two > sectors > >get are the same for the same length of work then > the > >exchange rate between the two commodities, > x(1)/x(2) > >must be equal to (a(12)+1-a(22))/2(1-a(11)) for the > >reproduction of the system. > > > >Now let us suppose that the iron producer receives > >twice as much for every hour of his/her work effort > >than the corn producer. In this case the exchange > >ratio between x(1) and x(2), for the reproduction > of > >the system, would be given by > > > >x(1)/x(2) = 2(2a(12)+1-a(22))/3(1-a(11)). > > > >Thus, any attempt to deduce value from the exchange > >ratio of commodities will give us different value > >measures for the same commodities, given different > >remunerations for different kinds of labor. Many > >Marxists have argued that this cannot happen, for > >labor mobility will ensure equal remuneration for > all > >kinds of labor (except for skilled labor, where the > >problem of reducing skilled to simple labor gets > into > >a circular argument). > > > >Before the discuss the theoretical flaw in this > >argument, I would like to point out that even in > the > >capitalist system labor mobility does not ensure > equal > >wages for equal work; sex and race discrimination > >maintain wage discrepancy which would render > deduction > >of value from exchange relation inoperative. > Though, > >given labor mobility, the assumption of equal pay > for > >equal work is theoretically justified for the > >capitalist system (assuming away the sex, race > >discrimination), it cannot be justified for simple > >commodity production. Labor is assumed to be mobile > in > >a capitalist system precisely because it is > abstract > >labor. Since workers are completely dispossessed of > >all means of production, they have nothing to sell > but > >certain amount of their labor-power irrespective of > >the form in which it is utilized. In this case it > >would be rational to assume that labor will move in > >the direction of higher remuneration, that is, > workers > >would prefer to sell their labor-power to whoever > >offers the best price for their commodity. > > > >However, simple commodity production assumes unity > of > >the means of production and the worker. Since the > >workers own their means of production, it is not > only > >practically difficult for the workers to move from > one > >concrete form of labor to another, but > theoretically > >workers do not have enough information to > rationalize > >such behavior. WAGES DO NOT EXIST AS ECONOMIC DATA > FOR > >WORKERS. Moreover, even if, as in our example, the > >corn producer knew that the iron producer's work is > >twice as highly remunerated as his/her work, he/she > >has no means of determining whether it is because > of > === message truncated === _______________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! http://vote.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Sep 16 2004 - 00:00:03 EDT