From: ajit sinha (sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM)
Date: Tue Mar 13 2007 - 10:12:29 EDT
--- Jerry Levy <Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM> wrote: > Hi Ajit: > > I only have time today for some brief interventions > so > #6 (on labor) will have to be put off (maybe > tomorrow). > > > > > Since capitalists own and control the means of > > > production and are legally entitled to the > commodity > > > product, let's define the > > > "wealth of the capitalists" as the monetary > worth of > > > the total product minus the monetary worth of > > > necessary consumption (2). > > So, I see! By wealth, you mean income. Generally, > in > > economics wealth is differentiated from income. > Wealth > > is a stock concept and income is a flow concept. > The > > capitalist could have inherited thousands of acres > of > > land and other kinds of wealth from his/her feudal > > ancestors. > > > Re last sentence: true, but this was excluded by > assumption. _________________ Not really! ________________ > > All that needs be said in terms of the theory at > this point > is that capitalists own and control the means of > production > including land. _______________________ That's one thing but to deduce from it that all the wealth owned by the capitalist is produced by wage-labor is wrong. Land is wealth and could be owned by the capitalist but in no case is produced by wage-labor. ________________________ > > Whether or not capitalists use all this wealth > productively > for the purpose of receiving the same or more > monies is > another question. _____________________ That's not even a question here. _________________ > > > > But there is no problem as long as we are > > clear about what you are talking about. The money > > value of the surplus product is the income of the > > capitalist by definition. > > > Part of it represents income; part of it is used to > purchase labor power and means of production for > the next period of production. _______________________ By income one does not mean the amount of money somebody uses for his own consumption. There is only two categories of income in your world: wages and profits. All profits are the income of the capitalists. What does the capitalist decides to do with his/her income is another matter. We should be clear about the meaning of the theoretical categories we use. _________________________ In any event, these > monies > belong to capitalists and it is therefore the > decision of > capitalists about how those monies should be spent. > > > > > You're basically correct: what we have is that > > > commodities were produced by lots of > wage-workers > > > who utilized means of production. > > Be careful in your formulations. Wage workers do > not > > utilize means of production. It is the capitalist > who > > utilizes the labor of the wage workers and the > means > > of production together. The wage-workers have no > > control over the production process. > > > Workers utilize means of production on the job even > though they do not control them. You are of course > correct that they don't decide on how they should be > used and that they are required as a condition of > employment to use means of production in a manner > specified by capitalists, but nonetheless workers > _do_ use means of production in the production > process. > That's not an illusion or a slippery formulation, > it's a simple > fact. _________________________ Then labor-power is not a commodity is also a simple fact. If you want to hold on to your proposition that labor-power is a commodity, then you have to admit that before the production begines the workers have already sold their capacity to work to the capitalist. Thus the work belongs to the capitalist and not to the worker, so how could the worker utilize anything by working? Now, this capacity to work as you have already defined is expenditute of human energy. How is this stored up human energy will be used in the production process is the decision of the capitalist and not the worker. The human energy is utilized by the capitalist in the process of production as coal is. It would be simply wrong to say that workers utilise coal and capitalists utilize workers. Cheers, ajit sinha ------------------------------- > > > > Their labor is > > utilized in the same manner as coal in the > production > > process. This is the foundation of the notion of > > alienated labor. > > > It is true here because of the constant circulating > capital > assumption (machines can exist in this model but > they are > assumed to be used up entirely in a production > period.) > When we consider machinery and modern industry I > don't > think it's accurate to say that capitalists utilize > means of > production in the same way as they utilize coal. For > instance, > certain kinds of means of production can be designed > in such > a way that they can assist the capitalist in > controlling the labor > process. The same can not be said for coal. But, > this is an > unnecessary complication at this point. > > > > Also keep in mind that when you take wages given > in > > terms of money, you cannot necessarily ensure that > > prices will always be such that workers are able > to > > consume at their customary level. > > Yes, that's true. > > > > In > > any case, you could assume that machines are used > up > > in one production cycle. > > Yes, that's what I was implicitly assuming. > > In solidarity, Jerry > ____________________________________________________________________________________ Food fight? Enjoy some healthy debate in the Yahoo! Answers Food & Drink Q&A. http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545367
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 31 2007 - 01:00:12 EDT