From: Riccardo Bellofiore (riccardo.bellofiore@UNIBG.IT)
Date: Tue Mar 13 2007 - 11:08:06 EDT
It is a typical Ric(c)ardian position. I don't know if Jerry would enjoy the confusion ... 8-) rb At 16:01 +0100 13-03-2007, Diego Guerrero wrote: >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