Chaion[603] wrote,
>
>In regard to Paul Cockshott [ope-l:594];
>
>I think Iwao just made a minor slip in saying that training and education
>costs are transferred to the value of labor power, not to the value of labor.
>I should revise it into that training and education costs are transferred to
>the value of labor power, not to the value of labor-power. If he consent to
>this, I agree with his position. The reason is as follows.
>
Iwao:
I thank chaion for revising my phrase. What I wanted to say is that the cost
of training and education are transfered to the value of labor power through
adding cost of reproduction of labor power, not to the value produced by
the trained or educated labor power in their labor process directly.
Chaion:
>1. The "value-creating power" of skilled labor is just a use-value of the
>labour-power. The training cost is a part of the production cost of the
>skill, and the production cost has nothing to do with its *use-value* (= the
>value-creating power) but only with its *exchange-value* (the wage rate of
>the skilled labor-power).
Iwao:
entirely agreed.
>2. In Paul's example of a software project. He says "The time they (his
>employees) spend reading the manuals and practicing with the system is a
>necessary part of the total time spent on the product." Paul, do you
>include all the time they spend for their own cooking, washing, cleaning,
>etc. in the socially necessary time for the product? Or do you include only
>the time for which you pecuniarily paid for? Or plus self-learning racking
>their brains at home night times? To discuss this in detail, we have to
>discuss in the first place how to measure or determine the amount of
>indirect labor time in the magnitude of ordinary commodity values if we are
>to be consistent. But I think we shall go to such discussions together
>some time later. At the moment, I put my own conclusion in advance. In
>the time, I include only the pecuniarily paid labour-time. And this does not
>enter into the value of output which they produce after being trained. This
>is because the output value rests on the value-creating power of their labor
>(the use-value of their skill), rather than the value of their labor-power
>(the production cost of their skill). Only the monetary-incurred cost of the
>skill can enter into the value of the skill, however. Holidays in the
>Mediterranean, if it is socially necessary and pecuniarily paid, is also to be
>taken into account.
I also hope we would discuss this matter further later again with you, Steve,
Paul C. and other interesteds. At this moment, I see no reason to exclude un-pecuniarily paid activities adding value-creating power as far as they are socially recognised as social necessary labor.
in ope-l solidarity,
Iwao
------------------------------------
Iwao Kitamura
a member of theoretical study group
Socialist Association (Japan)
E-mail : ikita@st.rim.or.jp
personal web: http://www.st.rim.or.jp/~ikita/