From: Philip Dunn (pscumnud@DIRCON.CO.UK)
Date: Wed Feb 16 2005 - 19:06:40 EST
Hi Jerry No doubt. But how much of this is relevant to the theory of value? The scattergun approach is not very illuminating. Quoting Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM: > > There is however another potentiality/actuality > > dimension, that between labour-power and labour. Here the actuality is an > > actuality of activity, labour being the activity or expenditure of > > labour-power. > > Phil: > > The dichotomy between potential and actual exists during > all moments of the production and circulation processes > under capitalism. > > Consider -- for the sake of simplification -- what happens > before, during, and after a 'period'. > > Before time period t, labour _and_ labour-power > exist only as potential. Prior to the wage contract, > it can not be known what amount of potential wage- > labourers will actually get jobs working for capital. > There is also obviously a gap between potential wages > and benefits and actual wages and benefits! > > After the wage contract has been agreed to, there is still > only potential unless and until work is extracted by capital > from wage-workers in the process of production during > time period t. Even where and when work is actually > extracted, capital does not know whether the actual > extraction of work from workers will equal the potential > (or even average or customary) work extracted, e.g. the actual > intensity of labour may be and often is quite different from > the potential intensity of labour. > > During time period t, also, the potential access to means > of production may be different from the actual access, > e.g. there may be an unanticipated shortage of raw materials > required for production. The potential constant fixed > capital may be also different from the actual constant > fixed capital, e.g. due to price changes in machinery or > restrictions on the diffusion and mobility of machinery > caused by property rights. > > In the continuation of the production process after > production where the commodity product is transported > to the market, there can -- for various (natural or social) > reasons -- be a gap between the actual output brought to > market in saleable condition and the potential commodity > product brought to market. > > There is then no guarantee that all of the actual output > will be sold or what the actual prices will be. It is only > after the commodity output is sold and values are > actualized that surplus-value can be converted into > capital. The actual amount of surplus value reinvested > as c and v in t + 1 will generally be different from the > potential amount of surplus value that could have been > invested because of the unproductive consumption of > surplus value by the capitalist class. What the rate of > productive and unproductive consumption of surplus > value will be will not be known until it actually happens. > Prior to t + 1, even after capitalists have a sum of > money-capital ready for purchasing c and v they don't > know what actual wages will be until after the wage > contract is renewed and they don't know what the > actual price and quality of means of production will > be. > > Both classes recognize the difference between potential and > actual and this often forms the basis of both 'offensive' > and 'defensive' struggles by the working class. E.g. the > struggle by workers for a short workweek is, in part (but > only generally, partly) a struggle based on a desire to > fulfill more of their potential as human beings. The struggle > by others in capitalist society is also based on their > recognition as groups and individuals of the discrepancy > between their potential and their actual conditions. Social > movements, e.g. the environmental movement, also > recognizes this duality. Indeed, without the recognition > that there is a difference between the potential and the > actual, then we would all give up hope and there would > be no struggles against capital and the state. But, isn't > it in our nature as human beings -- even under the worst > conditions -- to hope for better, to see the potential for > a better life? > > Etc. Etc. Etc. At every temporal and spatial step there > is the possibility and/or the reality of divergences between > the actual and the potential. Risk and uncertainty are > inherent in all moments of the production and circulation > processes and in the reproduction of capital. The dichotomy > between potential and actual is inherent in the money-form, > the commodity-form, the capital-form and all other forms > associated with capitalism. > > In solidarity, Jerry > > PS to Paul B: how is what Engels wrote as an afterward > to Volume 3 relevant to our understanding of value or > Marx's understanding of value? > Philip Dunn
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Feb 17 2005 - 00:00:02 EST