>
Kliman, when you say that "the surplus labor that he arrives at by
subtracting costs is not just surplus-labor actually produced" you imply
that it also includes extra surplus labor produced. However, you emphasize
that the question is "purely a matter of redistribution". Again: if there
is extra s-v produced due to the introduction of an innovation on the part
of a single firm then not all of the extra-profits pocketed by this firm
come from distribution.
I am saying this because Marx insists on this point: International
Publishers, Vol. I
p. 317:
"This augmentation of surplus value is pocketed by him (oops!), whether
his commodities belong or not to the class of necessary means of
subsistence.."
"Nevertheless... the increased production of surplus value arises from
the curtailment of the necessary labor time, and from the corresponding
prolongation of the surplus labor".
p. "The exceptionally productive labor operates as intensified labor; it
creates in equal periods of time greater values than average social labor
of the same kind. (See Ch. I Sect. 2, p.44)". [That is, he is reminding
the reader of the discussion about intensified labor which produces more
value than labor of normal intensity].
In other words, there is just too much emphasis by Marx on the fact that
there is extra surplus value being produced by the more advanced method
of production. And if, on the one hand, it is true that the "same amount
of labor cannot create more value" as Levy
suggests, it is also true, on the other hand, that in chapter 12 Marx
seems to be saying something different. I do not think we can just use
the expedient of reading extra profits where Marx writes extra surplus
value.
Under the pressure of the moment this is all I can contribute for now.
Cheers (not tears)
Paulo