> Alan Freeman wrote:
> >
> > I think Michaels posts [4532, 4542] let us approach the
> > issue in a very direct manner which gets right to the heart
> > of the problem.
> >
> > Let me ask this question. Suppose in February, the
> > workers in a given branch of production make twice as
> > many goods as in January, having worked the same number
> > of hours in each month. Suppose this results from changes in
> > technology which, for the sake of simplicity, we will assume
> > have not changed the cost structure of the firm (that is, the
> > organic composition does not change).
> >
> > So the workers, to put it simply, make twice as many things
> > in the same time, for the same money.
> >
> > Has the value they add to the (aggregate) product doubled?
Michael:
> If the entire branch enjoys doubled productivity, then the answer
> is easy: the value is the same.
Either in the case of an entire branch or in a single firm the LABOR-
value is the same. The increase in physical productivity does not
affect labor as it is producing **value**, only affect the
production of **uses-values**.
Let's take a single firm: Provided that the doubled output is sold
then, at a given price, (or a slightly low price) this amount of
LABOR-value will be represented in an amount of MONEY-value greater
than the average, i.e. it will be exhibit a MEL above the average. By
this, the more efficient firm will appropriate labor-time (in the
form of money) objectified as value in the less efficient firms.
This does not mean that the **contribution** in terms of LABOR-value
by the efficient firm changes: If this capitalist consumes 1000 hours
before and after the technical change, its contribution to the LABOR-
value of the branch will be 1000 hours. But since s/he has produced a
greater amount of use-values --at a given price-- will appropriate an
amount of MONEY representing a greater amount of labor time. This
is balanced out for the whole branch.
Alejandro Ramos