Re: [OPE-L] SV: [OPE-L] what is irrational in the functioning of capitalism?

From: ajit sinha (sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM)
Date: Thu Nov 30 2006 - 09:00:13 EST 

Paul, see my response to Ian. The point is: when the
quantity of labor in the scheme of total production
becomes extremely tiny, then it loses the
commonsensical explanatory power. A labor-value
explanation for prices or surplus value explanation
for profits would begin to look ridiculous. Cheers,
ajit sinha
______________________
--- Paul Cockshott <wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK> wrote:

> Ajit, I think that you are here using the language
> of the differential
> calculus, but to establish your point about surplus
> value tending to
> zero and still having a healthy rate of profit would
> actually require
> some considerable mathematical demonstration.
>
> It seems equally plausible that the rate of surplus
> value would be
> unchanged or that the rate of surplus value and rate
> of profit would
> become undefined.
>
> There is a further problem with importing the
> continuum hypothesis into
> this, in that labour is not arbitrarily divisible.
> It exists in finite
> units of people. You would have to analyse what
> happens as the working
> population falls. Since the population is quantized,
> the methods of the
> differential calculus would not appear to operate in
> the limit. At some
> determinate point in the process you envisage, the
> last worker would
> have been laid off. Prior to that point labour
> values would be defined
> after that point they are not defined and the
> transition between these
> states is not analytic.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: OPE-L [mailto:OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU] On
> Behalf Of ajit sinha
> Sent: 29 November 2006 20:32
> To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU
> Subject: Re: [OPE-L] SV: [OPE-L] what is irrational
> in the functioning
> of capitalism?
>
> --- Paul Cockshott <wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK> wrote:
>
> > Ajit wrote
> > _______________________________
> > Ian, I think you have missed the point. So let me
> > try
> > to get at it another way. Now, the idea of labor
> > displacing technical change plays an important
> role
> > in
> > Marx's theory (Ricardo had already acknowledged in
> > the
> > 3rd edition of the Principles that at least
> > logically,
> > if not empirically, machine can displace labor in
> > aggregate terms). Now, follow Marx's logic to the
> > extreme. Allow technical change to continuously
> > displace labor to the extent that the live labor's
> > role in the production process becomes negligible.
> > At
> > this limiting case, if you apply Marx's exercise
> > then
> > either you have to argue that the value of all the
> > commodities must tend to zero and the rate of
> > surplus
> > value must tend to infinity; or that the rate of
> > profits must tend to zero. Now, Marx's or many
> > Marxists position could be that of course the rate
> > of
> > profits must tend to zero because the case
> > represents
> > the c/v tending to infinity. But the problem with
> > this
> > answer is that Profit = S/(C+V) is the wrong
> formula
> > for the rate of profits. What I'm asking is: can
> you
> > logically claim that when V tends to zero, then
> the
> > physical surplus of the system must also tend to
> > zero?
> > If not, then it can be easily shown that this
> > limiting
> > system will have well defined prices of
> commodities
> > along with positive and equal rate of profits.
> >
> >
> >
> > ----------------------
> >
> > Ajit, the rise in C relative to V is predicated on
> > them
> > Both being measured in terms of labour value.
> >
> > Suppose we take a pure circulating capital model,
> > what does this rise in
> > C relative to V entail?
> >
> > Can we measure it using any non-labour based unit
> of
> > value?
> >
> > In a purely circulating capital system of i.o
> > equations the implication
> > of C rising relative to V, is that the net product
> > available for
> > distribution is declining ( leaving aside
> variations
> > in the wage share
> > ). This would entail a decline in the ratio of net
> > product to gross
> > product, and so would involve a decline in the
> rate
> > of profit whatever
> > input was used as the standard of value.
> _________________________
> Paul, I think you have missed the point as well, I'm
> not saying anything of this nature. As I have
> suggested above, the limiting case is compatible
> with
> commodity values tending to zero and the rate of
> surplus value tending to infinity--meaning Marx's
> value accounting breaking down. The basic point I'm
> making is simple: for Marx every physical surplus
> must
> represent some amount of surplus labor. That is why
> for Marx when surplus labor in the whole economy
> tends
> to zero, the rate of profits must also tend to zero.
> But, my argument is that, it is simply not true. The
> physical surplus in the whole economy may not tend
> to
> zero, and thus you can have an healthy positive rate
> of profits even when the values and surplus value
> tend
> to zero. In other words, the secret of surplus does
> not reside in surplus labor. My problem here is a
> logical one and not an empirical one (Robot
> rebellion
> is not an issue here). Cheers, ajit sinha
>
>
>
>
________________________________________________________________________
> ____________
> Yahoo! Music Unlimited
> Access over 1 million songs.
> http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited
>




____________________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Music Unlimited
Access over 1 million songs.
http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Dec 02 2006 - 00:00:04 EST