Alejandro,
Why not use terms like individual value and social value to explain
this? Why not, at first, assume a money commodity or a constant
MEL?
As I said in response to Michael, it would seem that we are in a
situation where Marx introduces the ideas of individual value and
social value in Vol I. Generalizing the technique by itself will
not make the social value fall to the individual value; nor will
competition. Rather it would seem that somehow we must show how
the "law of value" bring into being that that "band of hostile
brothers" who via competition cause the fall in social value to
the level of social value.
John
>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
>
>
>
>
>