From: Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM
Date: Tue Oct 04 2005 - 08:30:45 EDT
> Such a reading tens towards an ahistorical concept of > value, and necessarily involves the consequence that the inefficient > worker produces more valuable commodities than the efficient one; > and hence the formation of a social value determined by SNLT must > mean a transfer of value. Hi Chris: Why, from the perspective that you are critiquing, would an inefficient worker "necessarily" produce more valuable commodities than an efficient one? Where it is claimed that there is a transfer of value, isn't the value re-distributed from the least efficient capitals to the more efficient ones? Isn't the more "efficient" worker, to the extent that the efficiency arises from an increase in the productivity of labour and the production of relative surplus value, generally employed by the more advanced capitalists? In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Oct 06 2005 - 00:00:02 EDT