From: Dave Zachariah (davez@KTH.SE)
Date: Fri Dec 14 2007 - 16:15:40 EST
You write: > One could think of this as a 'rent' paid by workers to a segment of the > capitalist class or landowners because of their monopoly power. I think the alternative explanation is deficient because it adds "rents" where it is not needed. > Indeed, it could well be that the reduction in real wages > occasioned by the increase in food prices leads over time to > intensified class > struggle by workers as they seek to preserve their standard of > living. Yes of course, but we agreed to keep "all other things equal" for the moment in order to analyse the immediate impact of a rise of prices of the items that the workers consume alone. Let me ask you a slightly different question then: Suppose only the nominal wages fall instead, all other things equal. Has the rate of exploitation risen now? Surely by your definition the VLP has not changed. > The "something" is commodities: this is an important distinction. I simply disagree. Labour-value is applicable to any good or service produced with social labour, not merely when they assume the form of commodities. It is an objective social cost. //Dave Z on 2007-12-14 21:25 GERALD LEVY wrote: > > > You write: > > > If we follow your alternative, then surplus value can increase for no > > > other reason than capitalists increase the prices > > > of commodities sold to workers. > > Yes, that is precisely my point. It means that the capitalists are > > capable of effectively reducing the real wage of the workers. All other > > things being equal, the workers' standard of living has fallen and > > capitalists have received greater profits and can enjoy a greater > > standard of living: The division of the net product has changed and > > correspondingly the division of the total social labour time. > > Why don't you think so? Where do you disagree? I think any meaningful > > analysis must conclude that the rate of exploitation has risen in this > > example. > > > > > Hi Dave: > > > An alternative explanation would be: if the price of food sold to > workers has risen then that represents a gain, *not for the capitalist > class as a whole*, but for *one segment of capitalists and/or landowners*. > One could think of this as a 'rent' paid by workers to a segment of the > capitalist class or landowners because of their monopoly power. > > > The majority of the capitalist class would most likely not benefit by > this > change. Indeed, it could well be that the reduction in real wages > occasioned by the increase in food prices leads over time to > intensified class > struggle by workers as they seek to preserve their standard of > living. If workers are successful, then most capitalists could end- > up loosing even while agribusiness gains. > > > > > A note regarding Paul C's post: I have always read Marx's "value" as > > "labour-value" and "socially necessary labour time" as "social labour > > time necessary [to reproduce something]". They may be subtle differences > > but they are more precise and lead to less theoretical confusions. > > > The "something" is commodities: this is an important distinction. > > > In solidarity, Jerry > > > > > > > If workers > > > have to pay a higher amount for food, then one might conceive > > > of this as a short-term transfer of value from workers to food- > > > producing capitalists or landowners. >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Dec 31 2007 - 00:00:04 EST