Re: [OPE-L] What is most important in Marx's theory?

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