From: Dogan Goecmen (Dogangoecmen@AOL.COM)
Date: Tue Nov 28 2006 - 16:08:31 EST
In einer eMail vom 28.11.2006 16:20:54 Westeuropäische Normalzeit schreibt sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM: --- Dogan Goecmen <Dogangoecmen@AOL.COM> wrote: ____________________________ > 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 _______________________________ Dogan, Thank you for letting me know that "surplus value is one of the central categories of political economy". I would have simply ignored your patronising comment if it was true. But I'm sorry to inform you that you are wrong and you need to go back to your basics of political economy. The notion of surplus value is unique to Marx. Dear Ajit, it is kind of you that you did not ignore my comments. They were not meant to be patronising. If this was however your impression, I am sorry, that was not my intention. Following your recommendation I went to my basics of political economy. (By the way I am not a political economist in its formal sense. Though I studied political economy beside philosoph, sociology and politics, my degree is in political theory, and this is, I think, what I am: political theorist in its Smithian or Marxian sense.) Now, the result of my going back to my basics of political economy is this: Marx (and Engels) never says that the theory of surplus value is unique to him. He claims however that he explained the genesis of surplus value better, he worked out its relation to constant capital, variable capital and so on better. But he never says that it is unique to him. In volum 4 of Capital he discusses various theories of surplus value and tries to define his theory in relation to others'. And this is absolutely right becuase Ricardo, though he does not use the term, deals with profit. Smith talks of profit, extraprofit and, indeed "surplus". Therefore, Engels is correct when he says in the Preface to the English Edition of Capital that classical political economy was aware of surplus value. (iI this is too short we can come back.) I don't know if my English is so complicated that you cannot understand anything I have written. Where did I write capitalists can produce without labor now? And where did you get the idea that my question is a rhetorical one? It is a question of logical possibility. If a science fiction is logically possible, then that is a good logical challange to any theory that contradicts it. Cheers, ajit sinha Your English is not complicated at all. I know my English is not as good as yours (it is not my first language and I did not learn it in school. I taught myself English) But nevertheless I understand you very well. Indeed you do not say that "capitalists can produce without labor now". But if you think about the implications of what you write then it becomes (at least to me) that this is in the air in your statement. For you say: "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." In reply to this I said that if production without labour was possible then capitalists (the owners of means of production) would have already introduced this system. Generally, I just wanted to say that production without human beings (in capitalist society labourers) is impossible. Best regards Dogan ______________________________________________________________________________ ______ Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs. http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Nov 30 2006 - 00:00:06 EST