From: Dave Zachariah (davez@KTH.SE)
Date: Sat Dec 15 2007 - 09:10:46 EST
Hi Jerry, Your wrote: > If wages go down, then V goes down as well. Other things being > equal, the same quantity of V will result in a greater quantity of S. > So, yes, the rate of surplus value will have risen. > > > Surely by your definition the VLP has not changed. > > The definition I am using does not require the VLP to change. Fine, I understand your point. Your VLP has to be used in some sort of long-run analysis of the working population. I make a similar, but more general claim by "the total amount of labour necessary to reproduce the capacity to work". However, I don't think neither concept is very meaningful in the shorter term analysis of the division of net product and of the total social labour time, or the rate of exploitation. In that analysis one has to look at the labour-value of the real wage. //Dave Z on 2007-12-15 13:28 GERALD LEVY wrote: > > 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. > ------------------------------ > > Hi Dave: > > What you see as deficient I see as beneficial: the explanation I > have offered is able to account for an increase in food prices > benefits _one_ segment of capitalists. Explaining class diversity > and how that gives rise to differing and sometimes conflicting > interests within a class is an important aspect of class analysis. > > > > > 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. > > > See above. > > > > 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? > > > If wages go down, then V goes down as well. Other things being > equal, the same quantity of V will result in a greater quantity of S. > So, yes, the rate of surplus value will have risen. > > > Surely by your definition the VLP has not changed. > > > The definition I am using does not require the VLP to change. > There is no presumption on my part that at a particular moment > in time and place the wage must equal the VLP. > > > > > 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. > > > I disagree, but we'll save that discussion for another time. > > > In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Dec 31 2007 - 00:00:04 EST