From: Paul Cockshott (wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK)
Date: Wed Jun 06 2007 - 10:32:01 EDT
That solves it if you are looking at the matter empirically under capitalism, and that indeed is the statistical approach I have used. There is still the point though of how one calculates the input of complex labour in a planned economy where all education costs are met by the state. In those circumstances one can have an extended i/o table that deals with production and consumption of different types of labour. -----Original Message----- From: OPE-L [mailto:OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU] On Behalf Of ajit sinha Sent: 06 June 2007 13:37 To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU Subject: Re: [OPE-L] Complex ... and the French edition of capital I think this prolem is similar to the problem of fixed capital. The usual way of adding some presumed depreciation of fixed capital to the value of net or gross output introduces a spiritual element in the calculation. It is a ghostly figure, which does not have any material form. That's why Sraffa follows the joint-production method in the case of fixed capital--it is not to provide a better measure of calculating the 'depreciation', but rather making the calculation completely materialist by removing this spiritual element from the calculation. Similarly, the reduction of skilled to unskilled labor problem must completely do away with the spiritual element. The best way to do it is to define the unit of labor on the basis of differences in wages. We can observe the minimum wage and all the wages as well as hours of labor spent in the production process. Simply multiply the hours of labor with the differential of wages from the minimum wage and you have solved the problem. Cheers, ajit sinha --- Paul Cockshott <wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK> wrote: > Anders: > In my opinion the French version seriously > weakens the textual support for the > Hilferding/Okishio/Rowthorn "whose production has > cost more labour" - that is the "education cost" > solution to the labour reduction problem. > > Paul: > Why do you think that? > There is no coherent argument in the French edition > against Hilferdings > solution? > > Whether Hilferding was right or wrong stands on the > merits of > Hilferding's argument not on what Marx said, unless > Marx makes a > specific rebutall of the idea that the labour cost > of educating workers > enters into the labour cost of what these workers > themselves produce. As > far as I can see Marx makes no such contrary > argument. > > ________________________________________________________________________ ____________ We won't tell. Get more on shows you hate to love (and love to hate): Yahoo! TV's Guilty Pleasures list. http://tv.yahoo.com/collections/265
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jun 30 2007 - 00:00:04 EDT