From: Gerald Levy (jerry_levy@verizon.net)
Date: Mon Jul 14 2008 - 09:54:26 EDT
http://robertvienneau.blogspot.com/2008/07/ricardo-and-iron-law-of-wages.html The blog entry by Robert V ends: "As I understand it, the formal mathematics of the theory of value merely requires the wage to be given. But, as my email correspondent points out, if the wage is above subsistence, workers can save and class structure of capitalism will not be reproduced." I don't see why this conclusion is warranted. While the (real) wage is often taken to be given in many 'classical' theories, this does not seem to me to be necessary. I.e. those theories of value could be re-framed in such a way that the real wage is allowed to rise (or fall) within certain limits and the classical theories of value would not be negated by that revision. Similarly, the prospect of workers saving does not undermine a LTV or the theory of surplus value, let alone mean that the "class structure of capitalism will not be reproduced". It would certainly lead to more income and wealth differentiation within the working class, but the basic class structure of capitalism would not thereby be threatened. If Robert is saying that the problem arises simply because of the "formal mathematics" of the theory of value, then that is a good argument for re-casting the theory in less "formal" terms. I.e. if the assumption of a fixed real wage is necessary for mathematical purposes, then I question the appropriateness of the (linear) math for understanding the real subject. In solidarity, Jerry _______________________________________________ ope mailing list ope@lists.csuchico.edu https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Jul 31 2008 - 00:00:09 EDT