From: Dogan Goecmen (Dogangoecmen@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Nov 28 2006 - 06:21:48 EST
In einer eMail vom 28.11.2006 12:12:14 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM: --- Nicola Taylor <nmtayl@YAHOO.COM.AU> wrote: > --------------------------------- > Goecmen wrote: > > "The aim of capitalism is to produce as many wage > labourers as possible and put them on employment to > exploit." > > Martin replied: > > "The aim of the capitalist entrepreneur, I believe, > is > accumulation of capital. Through this tendency, more > areas of human society has historically been > subsumed > in a wagelabour relation over time. Ricardo was one > who made the accumulation of capital modus very > explicit in his Principles. I don't see that the > ratio > of wage labourers-population is really as important > though". ____________________________ Actually, I do not understand why "labor" is particularly important in the context of production of profit. Do we think that "surplus" cannot be produced without labor? But why can't we imagine a system of production completely operated by robots? In this case, why can't we imagine the system producing a "surplus" and a market with prices of commodities with a rate of profits to boot. The question is, can we make a logical claim that a system of production without labor will not be able to produce "surplus". If not, then there is a serious problem with Marx's concept of "surplus value". Cheers, ajit sinha Ajit, surplus value theory is not unique to Marx. Rather it is one of the most central categories of political economy. If it was possible to produce value without labourers capitalists would have not employed workers at all. Your rhetorical question implies that production can take place without human beings. If this is what you mean, this a science fiction. Regards, Dogan _______________ > > SHORT RESPONSE: > I agree with Martin that the individual entrepreneur > is concerned only with capital accumulation - or > from > his/her perspective, making money returns that > exceed > costs. I also agree with Martin that the > capitalist's > concern is rational in that 'money profit' is > necessary for the successful reproduction of the > firm > in a capitalist system. Now, to see how capitalist > rationality fosters a reserve army of the unemployed > one could consider, for example, the Nike > Corporation. > Desperate workers in Indonesia consitute a huge > reserve army of the unemployed, from whom Nike can > pick and choose wage labourers. In Indonesia, those > 'lucky' enough to get a job are willing to work very > long hours in appalling conditions for very low > wages. > Nike workers, however, are not the buyers of the > product, which is primarily sold in high-wage > countries (where employment is also relatively > higher). Further, in high-wage countries the Nike > corporation uses advertising techniques to increase > demand (hence prices) for their products. These > efforts to keep wages low and prices high have a > further effect in that Nike shares may be seen by > speculators as a worthwhile punt. The result is that > Nike successfully reproduces (and partially > finances) > itself. > > For the individual capitalist/corporation, then, > wage > labour is merely a means to an overriding end > (capital > accumulation). If we accept this end as rational > *in > so far* as it is necessary for capitalist > reproduction, then the incomplete subsumption of > labour under a wage system is also rational *to the > extent* that it assists firms to increase monetary > returns and reproduce themselves. > > Nicky > > Send instant messages to your online friends > http://au.messenger.yahoo.com > ______________________________________________________________________________ ______ Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all-new Yahoo! Mail beta. http://new.mail.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 30 2006 - 00:00:06 EST