Dear Comrades,
Is a repaired machine (one year old) dearer than normal one of the same age?
If the repaier's labor is productive, why is the one not more expensive than
the other?
Jerry,
"Since it is of the utmost importance to treat every ailment of the machinery
immediately, every large factory has, in addition to the factory workers
proper, a staff of engineer, carpenter, mechanic, fitter, etc. Their wages
form part of the variable capital, and the value of their labour is
distributed over the product" (Ibid, p. 255).
Even supervisor's wage, too forms part of the variable capital. But this
does not mean his labor is productive.
You asked, "Yet, how can living labor *be* a raw material?" Since it does
not add value in the same way as other living labors do, but simply adds its
own cost to the value of output, it is like a raw material. If there is some
saving in the waste of the material, it also increases the surplus value.
In that sense, I said "In Jerry's case, the surplus-value estracted from the
repairer's labor is taken to be $9 multiplied by the rate of exploitation".
If the repairing labor were productive, it would have to produce surplus
value in the same proportion as other living labors. But, because it is
unproductive, I said, it creates surplus value only upto the difference
between normal repairing cost and the actual repairing cost. It "creates"
only in the sense that was a part of the variable capital.
With regards,
Chai-on