From: Diego Guerrero (diego.guerrero@CPS.UCM.ES)
Date: Tue Mar 13 2007 - 11:01:47 EDT
I don't understand: was the message below Riccardo's or Jerry's...? Diego ----- Original Message ----- From: <ope-admin@RICARDO.ECN.WFU.EDU> To: <OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 12:55 PM Subject: Re: [OPE-L] What is most important in Marx's theory? > It's deja vu all over again. Riccardo and I thought this problem > was solved yesterday but evidently not. / In solidarity, Jerry > > ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- > Subject: Re: [OPE-L] What is most important in Marx's theory? > From: "Riccardo Bellofiore" <riccardo.bellofiore@unibg.it> > Date: Tue, March 13, 2007 6:51 am > To: "Jerry Levy" <glevy@PRATT.EDU> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > There is nothing specifically capitalist in what you say. This is not > Marx. It is Smith. > > Our (at least, my) problem is to refer (new) VALUE to ABSTRACT > labour, with NO residue, so that the productivity of value comes out > ONLY from labour. > > In my view the argument by Marx is very, very specific. It has to do > with the macro, class and monetary nature of capitalism. > > Just a part of it. > > In capitalism ONLY we have the buying and selling of labour power of > free individuals (on the labour market, prior to the production > process). > > The use value of labour power is living labour, producing (surplus) > value and (surplus) money. > > The capitalist(s) buy labour power of worker(s), so they have the > right to exploit = use it. This exploitation amount to the whole > working day. > > Use it means putting workers to work, i.e. living labour. > > AFTER the employment contract on the labour market. > > Living labour may be higher than necessary labour (of course, it is > in fact). This variability of LL relative to NL is a piece of good > luck for the buyer(s). > > Unfortunately, the seller(s) are attached to the commodity they sell. > Not true for sellers of corn, for example. > > So, AT THE SAME TIME, the labour power and the living labour CANNOT > BUT BE the LP and the LL of the labourer. A piece of bad luck > (potentially) for the buyers. But the good and the bad luck are > inseparable. > > When capitalist(s) buy corn, if the technique is given, the quantity > of other inputs and the output are known, determined ex ante. > > NOT TRUE for the commodity labour power. Technical conditions do not > define the social working day. When living labour *varies*, the > quantity of other inputs and the output varies. I > > And it is typical of capitalism this "variability". The indeterminacy > ex ante, and the uncertainty, linked to class struggle in production > (led by both classes). > > Note: in feudal society, as Marx depicts it, the labourer produce an > ex ante determined amount of surplus in kind.See Luxemburg on the > wage, very good on this. In pre-capitalism it is the lot of the > dominant classes which is determined ex ante. In capitalism, it is > the workers'. > > Only as long as capitalist(s) are able to gain in this struggle at > the point of production, creating a capitalist organisation and > technology of production, and even hegemony and cooperation > (Burawoy), overcoming potential conflict and counterproductivity by > workers, they are able to get labour in the quantity and quality > needed. > > Very specific to the social relations of production and the way the > circuit of money capital and class struggle in production goes on in > capitalism. > > No reference to any ahistoric notion of "activity" by labour here, if > not as a generic feature which by itself does not explain nothing. If > you want to explain something relative to the valorization process, > we cannot stick to something which is true for any labour process, > and for any society. > > But I understand this looks very strange to most. To me is the basic. > > rb > > ps: I'll try to answer though briefly to other posts asap (mind the final > "ap") > > At 11:00 +0100 13-03-2007, Diego Guerrero wrote: >>Hi, Riccardo, >> >> >> >>You said: >> >> >><, btw, has >>NOTHING to do with the ahistoric feature that >>labour is active, and nature or means of >>production etc passive (that's why I cannpot >>agree with the train of thought of Diego, and of >>all those who in my view are regressing to >>Smith). It has to do with the specific social >>relation of capital.> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>When I say that labour is the only active element in production I just >>mean >>the following: >> >> >> >>If in social production you take out any other input completely and for >>ever, for example corn, society will experience some difficulties, but >>production will continue. That is, it will keep being an output: matrix A >>will be modified but still A>0. >> >> >> >>However, if you take labour out, production will stop more soon than >>later. >>Then you will have neither input nor output at all, and A becomes = 0. >> >> >> >>So, without labour, the ACTION in which production consists of ceases >>absolutely. This happens only in the case of labour. This is why I call >>labour the only active element in production. >> >> >> >>You cannot deny this, can you? >> >> >> >>Best, >> >>Diego >>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 31 2007 - 01:00:12 EDT