Re: [OPE-L] Complex ... and the French edition of capital

From: ajit sinha (sinha_a99@YAHOO.COM)
Date: Wed Jun 06 2007 - 13:11:48 EDT 

--- Paul Cockshott <wpc@DCS.GLA.AC.UK> wrote:

> 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.
_____________________
Of course, planning is a different problem. And again,
education cannot be looked at as something that only
produces "skilled labor". I think the economic
calculation of the value of labor would be almost
impossible. Cheers, ajit sinha
>
> -----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
>




____________________________________________________________________________________
Choose the right car based on your needs.  Check out Yahoo! Autos new Car Finder tool.
http://autos.yahoo.com/carfinder/

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Jun 30 2007 - 00:00:04 EDT