Re Paul's comment on my post re skilled labor increasing surplus value:
Paul Cockshott wrote:
> <snip>
> Extra surplus value, in this case relative surplus value will only have
> been created to the extent that typing enters into the necessary labour
> time of workers in general. If training doubles productivity, and if
> the real wages remains fixed, then surplus value in the economy as a whole
> will rise by one half of the amount of typing labour that was directly
> and indirectly embodied in the real wage.
> In this respect training is equivalent to technical change.
> Paul Cockshott
>
> wpc@cs.strath.ac.uk
> http://www.cs.strath.ac.uk/CS/Biog/wpc/index.html
Agreed. My point is that this analysis is only possible if you
"de-couple" the value-productivity impact of training from its
value-input (which then lets you begin with a hypothesis like "suppose
training [doubles/triples/sextuples] productivity"). This is feasible
with Hilferding's use-value/exchange-value analysis, but not with the
Sweezy/Meek approach.
Cheers,
Steve